Posted on 06/11/2007 8:11:53 PM PDT by markomalley
| CHURCH GREW IN UNDERSTANDING OF MARY’S ROLE |
| Pope John Paul II |
|
|
Down the centuries, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church has sought to understand more clearly the revealed truth about the Mother of God "The sparse information on Mary's earthly life is compensated by its quality and theological richness, which contemporary exegesis has carefully brought to light", the Holy Father said at the General Audience of Wednesday, 8 November, as he continued his reflections on the Virgin Mary. The Pope's catechesis on Mary in Sacred Scripture and theological reflection was the fourth in the series on the Blessed Mother and was given in Italian. 1. In our preceding catecheses we saw how the doctrine of Mary's motherhood passed from its first formula, "Mother of Jesus", to the more complete and explicit, "Mother of God", even to the affirmation of her maternal involvement in the redemption of humanity. For other aspects of Marian doctrine as well, many centuries were necessary to arrive at the explicit definition of the revealed truths concerning Mary. Typical examples of this faith journey towards the ever deeper discovery of Mary's role in the history of salvation are the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, proclaimed, as we know by two of my venerable predecessors, respectively, the Servant of God Pius IX in 1854, and the Servant of God Pius XII during the Jubilee Year of 1950.
Mariology is a particular field of theological research: in it the Christian people's love for Mary intuited, frequently in anticipation, certain aspects of the mystery of the Blessed Virgin, calling the attention of theologians and pastors to them. Mother of Jesus had role in salvation history 2. We must recognize that, at first sight, the Gospels offer scant information on the person and life of Mary. We would certainly like to have had fuller information about her, which would have enabled us to know the Mother of God better. This expectation remains unsatisfied, even in the other New Testament writings where an explicit doctrinal development regarding Mary is lacking. Even St Paul's letters, which offer us a rich reflection on Christ and his work, limit themselves to stating, in a very significant passage, that God sent his Son "born of woman" (Gal 4:4). Very little is said about Mary's family. If we exclude the infancy narratives, in the Synoptic Gospels we find only two statements which shed some light on Mary: one concerning the attempt by his "brethren" or relatives to take Jesus back to Nazareth (cf. Mk 3:2 1; Mt 12:48); the other, in response to a woman's exclamation about the blessedness of Jesus' Mother (Lk 11:27).
Nevertheless, Luke, in the infancy Gospel, in the episodes of the Annunciation, the Visitation, the birth of Jesus, the presentation of the Child in the temple and his finding among the teachers at the age of 12, not only provides us with some important facts, but presents a sort of "proto-Mariology" of fundamental interest. His information is indirectly completed by Matthew in the account of the annunciation to Joseph (Mt 1:18-25), but only with regard to the virginal conception of Jesus. Moreover, John's Gospel deepens our knowledge of the value for salvation history of the role played by the Mother of Jesus, when it records her presence at the beginning and end of his public fife. Particularly significant is Mary's presence at the Cross, when she received from her dying Son the charge to be mother to the beloved disciple and, in him, to all Christians (cf. Jn 2:1-12; Jn 19:25-27). Lastly, the Acts of the Apostles expressly numbers the Mother of Jesus among the women of the first community awaiting Pentecost (cf. Acts 1:14). However, in the absence of further New Testament evidence and reliable historical sources, we know nothing of Mary's life after the Pentecost event nor of the date and circumstances of her death. We can only suppose that she continued to live with the Apostle John and that she was very closely involved in the development of the first Christian community. 3. The sparse information on Mary's earthly life is compensated by its quality and theological richness, which contemporary exegesis has carefully brought to light. Moreover, we must remember that the Evangelists' viewpoint is totally Christological and is concerned with the Mother only in relation to the joyful proclamation of the Son. As St Ambrose observed, the Evangelist, in expounding the mystery of the Incarnation, "believed it was better not to seek further testimonies about Mary's virginity, in order not to seem the defender of the Virgin rather than the preacher of the mystery" (Exp. in Lucam, 2, 6: PL 15, 1555).
We can recognize in this fact a special intention of the Holy Spirit, who desired to awaken in the Church an effort of research which, preserving the centrality of the mystery of Christ, might not be caught up in details about Mary's life, but aim above all at discovering her role in the work of salvation, her personal holiness and her maternal mission in Christian life. Faith of the simple recognized Mary's holiness 4. The Holy Spirit guides the Church's effort, committing her to take on Mary's own attitudes. In the account of Jesus' birth, Luke noted how his mother kept all these things, "pondering them in her heart" (Lk 2:19), striving, that is, to "put together" (symballousa), in a deeper vision, all the events of which she was the privileged witness. Similarly, the people of God are also urged by the same Spirit to understand deeply all that has been said about Mary, in order to progress in the knowledge of her mission, intimately linked to the mystery of Christ.
As Mariology develops, the particular role of the Christian people emerges. They co-operate, by the affirmation and witness of their faith, in the progress of Marian doctrine, which normally is not only the work of theologians, even if their task is indispensable to deepening and clearly explaining the datum of faith and the Christian experience itself. The faith of the simple is admired and praised by Jesus, who recognized in it a marvellous expression of the Father's benevolence (cf. Mt 11:25; Lk 10:21). Down the centuries it continues to proclaim the marvels of the history of salvation, hidden from the wise. This faith, in harmony with the Virgin's simplicity, has led to progress in the recognition of her personal holiness and the transcendent value of her motherhood. The mystery of Mary commits every Christian, in communion with the Church, "to pondering in his heart" what the Gospel revelation affirms about the Mother of Christ. In the logic of the Magnificat, after the example of Mary, each one will personally experience God's love and will discover a sign of God's tenderness for man in the marvels wrought by the Blessed Trinity in the woman "full of grace". |
Am humbled and blessed.
Thanks tons for being there for me as needed, too.
I am happy to consider any further exhortatiions to help improve my Christianity and/or character.
Thanks enormously.
Health and wholeness to you and yours.
LUB
You’re so funny. I enjoy your rants. Mxxx
Get on www.hacres.com. Dr. Malkmus was cured of incurable cancer through a raw food diet and carrot juicing, etc. He calls in the hallelujah diet, biblical diet, and has written several books, one being “Why Christians Get Sick.” It’s no dairy, meat, white flour, white sugar, white bread (nothing white); you can have whole grains, nuts, seeds, raw vegetables, fruits, a cooked potato or sweet potato, whole grain noodles, etc. It’s essentialy a vegan diet. He has been a great testimony to many. It’s worth trying it anyway. Love, Maryxxx
Your encouragements always mean a lot to me.
As do yours, my friend and brother.
Jesus was speaking to the Jews, after all, and they claimed to believe God did all the miracles recorded in the Torah and the prophets, that the Torah existed before the world and was given by Him. And yet they knew so little of the power of the God, they didn’t recognize Him when He was talking to them.
It is as if, despite all their claims to the contrary, they had treated the words of God in the Torah as mere words which needed the explication and justification of their mortal religious experts to be understood.
Evidently, they had no idea the Word of God is alive, is God, is Jesus Christ.
This is no substitute for Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
Many times it is self: possessions, health, beauty, strength, power. Sometimes it is a child, a spouse, a lover, a celebrity, etc. It could be the church, a religious figure, a preacher. Or it could be something material – a building, an object, a thing. Or an ideology or political view or a doctrine or tradition of men. And so on.
Any thing or any one we love as much or more than God is an idol.
Oh, and because we mortals are so great at seeing only what we want to see, I strongly recommend now and again asking someone else what he believes, based on our words and deeds, is most important to us. The answer can be very illuminating.
To God be the glory!
Again, the power of God. There is no substitute for Jesus Christ – hearing His voice, being known by Him, knowing Him, being born anew, indwelled by the Spirit, loving God exceedingly above all else. (John 3, John 10, John 15, Romans 8, I Cor 2, I John 4, Matt 22, et al)
This is no substitute for Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
Many times it is self: possessions, health, beauty, strength, power. Sometimes it is a child, a spouse, a lover, a celebrity, etc. It could be the church, a religious figure, a preacher. Or it could be something material – a building, an object, a thing. Or an ideology or political view or a doctrine or tradition of men. And so on.
Any thing or any one we love as much or more than God is an idol.
Oh, and because we mortals are so great at seeing only what we want to see, I strongly recommend now and again asking someone else what he believes, based on our words and deeds, is most important to us. The answer can be very illuminating.
To God be the glory!
I strongly encourage your last suggestion above. Asking such questions of those around me--including at least one or two who often disagree with me--has been a very redemptive habit in my life.
Have you read through http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1848700/posts?page=282#282?
There is quite a bit of Scriptural support. Perhaps you might find it interesting, if not informative.
wILL CHECK IT OUT.
Have read through the Bible a number of times.
Am about through the NT again in THE MESSAGE version.
There is NOT A SHRED of Scriptural support for any of the Marian stuff.
Not a shred.
You may not have noticed any shred of evidence that supports the Catholic Church’s position on Mary (and many other things). I believe you.
If you do find that there are at least shreds of evidence as indicated, might that lead to the conclusion that perhaps the methodology utilized to arrive at a “no-shred” conclusion is in error? And, if the methodology might be in error on this particular theological topic, might it also err on others?
Evidently, they had no idea the Word of God is alive, is God, is Jesus Christ.
Amen! Christ alone.
Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee. Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the LORD hath wrought this? In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind." - Job 12:7-10"But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee:
"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you...
But ye that did cleave unto the LORD your God are alive every one of you this day...
For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God...
Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else." -- Deuteronomy 4:2,4,24,39
Thank you oh so very much, dear sister in Christ!
Great points and Scriptures.
Thanks.
Your logic is reasonable.
The foundation in this topic area is not.
It may not show . . . but I’m not wholesale ignorant of Scripture.
Basically, on that score, you are barking up the wrong tree.
In addition to Scripture, Holy Spirit within me is fierce on this issue as few others, in my experience.
I see.
Now, did you in fact read the post and reach any conclusions.
But, in fact, the Bible that you refer to has had the Word of God subtracted from it. Therefore your Scripture, incomplete as it is, cannot enable you to keep the Commandments.
With this knowledge, that many witness that you now have, what will you do?
Again, you are mistaken.
With this knowledge, that many witness that you now have, what will you do?
I intend to correct your error, by the grace of God.
Here's an excellent, concise and correct understanding of the canonicity of Scripture, used here in a Q & A as part of a Biblical rebuttal to the fictitious fable of purgatory...
(2). The Protestant churches (not just Martin Luther) considered the canon of Old Testament Scripture in use by the Jews of Palestine and recognized by Christ and his apostles to be the divinely given canon of OT Scripture. The other books (referred to by Protestants as "The Apocrypha") were never part of the Jewish canon and circulated in communities outside Palestine. There was actually a much larger library of such books, written in Aramaic or in Greek, some of which are still extant. The Reformers did not originate their view of the canon (i.e., take books out of the Bible, as if all the church before them had accepted all the books found in the Catholic Bible). (3). The "Catholic" books were not officially declared to be part of the Bible until the Council of Trent, an action in reaction to the Protestant Reformers, and not a council of the whole church. (4). We do not consider that councils of the church are infallible, and in particular not the Council of Trent, which did indeed address and reform moral abuses in the church. But rather than adopting doctrinal reforms which would have clearly affirmed what the Bible teaches about salvation - through the work of Christ alone, received by faith alone, imparted by grace alone (Rom.3:19-26, Ephesians 2:1-10, etc.), Trent codified the doctrinal traditions that had grown in the previous centuries to obscure the gospel under prayers to saints, the mediation of Mary, penance and meritorious works, purgatory, the sacrifice of the mass, etc., none of which find any support in Scripture...(1). Up until the time of the Reformation there was more than one opinion regarding the books to be included in the Bible. St. Augustine, for example, while revering the books to which you refer as being worthy of reading in the churches for edification, considered them to be "deutero-canonical", that is, having secondary authority not on a par with the fully canonical books.
Mistaken? Error? Ah, I see. John Calvin’s spiritual descendents are guided by the Holy Spirit and the The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ is wrong. You may wish to correct your own error in when the books were established as the complete Scripture.
The books of the Old Testament were written probably between 1000 and 100 BC, and are usually distinguished as four sets: The Law (or Torah, our first five books of the Old Testament), the Historical Books, the Prophets, and the Writings. (The books of I & II Maccabees belong to the historical set, being written between 150 - 100 BC.) Even in the New Testament itself, we find references to the reading of the Law and the Prophets in synagogue services (e.g. Luke 4:16-19, Acts 13:15). After the Fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, the Jewish rabbis convened the Council of Jamnia (90-100), at which time they established what books would be considered their Sacred Scripture. At this time, some controversy still existed over what are called the seven “deuterocanonical books” — Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and I & II Maccabees — although they had been incorporated in their entirety or at least partially in versions of the Septuagint, the official Greek translation of the Old Testament (c. 100 BC). Part of the reason for the controversy was because these were the latest writings of the Old Testament and were written in Greek rather than Hebrew; the other books of the Old Testament — the “protocanonical books”— were older and originally written in Hebrew. Modern scholars note that Jamnia did not exclude any books definitively; a rigid fixing of the Jewish canon does not occur until at least 100 years later, and even then other books— including the deuterocanonical books— were read and honored. Many Scripture scholars, however, have no doubt that the apostolic Church accepted the deuterocanonical books as part of its canon of Sacred Scriptures. For instance, Origen (d. 245) affirmed the use of these books among Christians even though some of the Jewish leaders did not officially accept them.
Meanwhile, the writing of the New Testament books occurred between the time of our Lord’s death and the end of the first century. (Recent studies of the Dead Sea Scrolls by some scholars suggest a date of the earliest writings closer to the time of our Lord’s death, whereas much scholarship seems to place the writings between 50 and 100 AD). After the legalization of Christianity in 313, we find the Church striving to formalize what writings of the New Testament were truly considered inspired and authentic to the teachings of our Lord. St. Athanasius in his Paschal Epistle (367) presented the complete list of 27 books of the New Testament saying, “These are the sources of salvation, for the thirsty may drink deeply of the words to be found here. In these alone is the doctrine of piety recorded. Let no one add to them or take anything away from them.” This list of 27 books along with the 46 books of the Old Testament (including the deuterocanonical ones) was affirmed as the official canon of Sacred Scripture for the Catholic Church by the synods of Hippo (393), Carthage I & II (397 and 419). The letter of Pope St. Innocent I in 405 also officially listed these books.
Although some discussion arose over the inclusion of other books into the Church’s canon of Sacred Scripture after this time, the Council of Florence (1442) definitively established the official list of 46 books of the Old Testament and 27 of the New Testament.
With this background, we can now address why the Protestant versions of the Bible have less books than the Catholic versions. In 1534, Martin Luther translated the Bible into German. He grouped the seven deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and I & II Maccabees) of the Old Testament under the title “Apocrypha,” declaring, “These are books which are not held equal to the Sacred Scriptures and yet are useful and good for reading.” Luther also categorized the New Testament books: those of God’s work of salvation (John, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, I Peter, and I John); other canonical books (Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, rest of Pauline epistles, II Peter, and II John); and non-canonical books (Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation, and books of the Old Testament). Many Church historians speculate that Luther was prepared to drop what he called the “non-canonical books” of the New Testament but refrained from doing so because of possible political fall-out. Why Luther took this course of action is hard to say. Some scholars believe Luther wanted to return to the “primitive faith,” and therefore accepted only those Old Testament books written in Hebrew originally; others speculate he wanted to remove anything which disagreed with his own theology. Nevertheless, his action had the permanent consequence of omitting the seven deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament in Protestant versions of the Bible.
The 39 Articles of Religion (1563) of the Church of England asserted that these deuterocanonical books may be read for “example of life and instruction of manners,” although they should not be used “to establish any doctrine” (Article VI). Consequently, the King James Bible (1611) printed the books between the New Testament and Old Testaments. John Lightfoot (1643) criticized this arrangement because he thought the “wretched Apocrypha” may be seen as a bridge between the two. The Westminster Confession (1647) decreed that these books, “not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of Scripture, and therefore are of no authority of the Church of God; nor to be in any otherwise approved, or made use of than other human writings.” The British and Foreign Bible Society decided in 1827 to remove these books from further publications and labeled these books “apocryphal.” However, many Protestant versions of the Bible today will state, “King James version with Apocrypha.”
The Council of Trent, reacting to the Protestant Reformers, repeated the canon of Florence in the Decree on Sacred Books and on Traditions to be Received (1546) and decreed that these books were to be treated “with equal devotion and reverence.” The Catechism repeats this same list of books and again affirms the apostolic Tradition of the canon of Sacred Scripture.
Deuterocanonical Books
Protestants accuse Catholics of “adding” books to the Bible, while Catholics retort that Protestants have “booted out” part of Scripture. Catholics are able to offer very solid and reasonable arguments in defense of the scriptural status of the deuterocanonical books. These can be summarized as follows:
1) They were included in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament from the third century B.C.), which was the “Bible” of the Apostles. They usually quoted the Old Testament scriptures (in the text of the New Testament) from the Septuagint.
2) Almost all of the Church Fathers regarded the Septuagint as the standard form of the Old Testament. The deuterocanonical books were in no way differentiated from the other books in the Septuagint, and were generally regarded as canonical. St. Augustine thought the Septuagint was apostolically-sanctioned and inspired, and this was the consensus in the early Church.
3) Many Church Fathers (such as St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, Tertullian) cite these books as Scripture without distinction. Others, mostly from the east (for example, St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory Nazianzus) recognized some distinction but nevertheless still customarily cited the deuterocanonical books as Scripture. St. Jerome, who translated the Hebrew Bible into Latin (the Vulgate, early fifth century), was an exception to the rule (the Church has never held that individual Fathers are infallible).
4) The Church Councils at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), influenced heavily by St. Augustine, listed the deuterocanonical books as Scripture, which was simply an endorsement of what had become the general consensus of the Church in the west and most of the east. Thus, the Council of Trent merely reiterated in stronger terms what had already been decided eleven and a half centuries earlier, and which had never been seriously challenged until the onset of Protestantism.
5) Since these Councils also finalized the 66 canonical books which all Christians accept, it is quite arbitrary for Protestants to selectively delete seven books from this authoritative Canon. This is all the more curious when the complicated, controversial history of the New Testament Canon is understood.
6) Pope Innocent I concurred with and sanctioned the canonical ruling of the above Councils (Letter to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse) in 405.
7) The earliest Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament, such as Codex Sinaiticus (fourth century), and Codex Alexandrinus (c.450) include all of the deuterocanonical books mixed in with the others and not separated.
8) The practice of collecting these books into a separate unit dates back no further than 1520 (in other words, it was a novel innovation of Protestantism). This is admitted by, for example, the Protestant New English Bible (Oxford University Press, 1976), in its “Introduction to the Apocrypha,” (p.iii).
9) Protestantism, following Martin Luther, removed the deuterocanonical books from their Bibles due to their clear teaching of doctrines which had been recently repudiated by Protestants, such as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12, 2 Maccabees 12:39-45 ff.; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:29), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14; cf. Revelation 6:9-10), and intermediary intercession of angels (Tobit 12:12,15; cf. Revelation 5:8, 8:3-4). We know this from plain statements of Luther and other Reformers.
10) Luther was not content even to let the matter rest there, and proceeded to cast doubt on many other books of the Bible which are accepted as canonical by all Protestants. He considered Job and Jonah mere fables, and Ecclesiastes incoherent and incomplete. He wished that Esther (along with 2 Maccabees) “did not exist,” and wanted to “toss it into the Elbe” river.
11) The New Testament fared scarcely better under Luther’s gaze. He rejected from the New Testament Canon (”chief books”) Hebrews, James (”epistle of straw”), Jude and Revelation, and placed them at the end of his translation, as a New Testament “Apocrypha.” He regarded them as non-apostolic. Of the book of Revelation he said, “Christ is not taught or known in it.” These opinions are found in Luther’s Prefaces to biblical books, in his German translation of 1522.
You appear to be steadfast in your beliefs, even in the face of fact and reason. God knows that I am no lightning bolt and have never been anywhere near Damascus. But maybe I can shed just a little light on things. I may not be able to bring you to a rapid full understanding and acceptance of the Church of Jesus Christ, but I may be able to plant that mustard seed in hopefully fertile soil.
Yes.
I went back and read that post
THE SECOND TIME or third.
My conclusions were . . .
the evidence is so nonexistent, I’m STILL shocked that anyone could put the least bit of confidence in such . . . notions.
That’s about as charitably as I can put it.
And the more proffered RC “evidence” I read, the angrier I get at the RC magicsterical over the centuries who have perpetuated such a fraud on the people.
And, my sense is, that Mary herself, if anger is a thing of Heaven at all, is angrier than I am.
I don’t know how I can make my convictions any clearer.
All the efforts so far, to adjust my perspective have only increased the certainty of my convictions because the evidence is soooooo nonexistent and the “logic” so . . . irrational.
Before, I could have rationalized that dear RC folks were slightly misguided, given overmuch to affections for traditions etc.
Now, I’m more convinced than ever that RC folks have been wholesale defrauded and that most likely most of the time by folks who KNEW it was nonsense but had political, pride and other reasons to perpetuate the fraud. And the more I read, the more I’m convinced of this latter construction on such ‘realities.’
You chose to ask.
I chose to answer.
God be with you.
The reasons for tossing out the Apocrypha have been listed numerous times on such threads.
They are solid, rational, Biblical, historical reasons.
Your assertion smacks of a wholesale blind bias that is inconsistent with facts and with Scripture.
There is more than a shred,Dear Brother, there is a mountain of Scriptural evidence! This is going to be long.
The problem you have is lack of understanding that The Old
Testament is fulfilled in the New Testament.
Typology bears this out
Mary typifies more than one thing as Dear MarkBsnr pointed out
Lets start with this....
God Created Ark Of Covenant WITHOUT STAIN
Here is a comparison of Old Testament Ark “verses” New Testament Mary who is the “Immaculate” Ark of the NEW COVENANT
A cloud of glory covered the Tabernacle and Ark (Exodus 40:34-35; Numbers 9:15) = Type is
“And the angel said to her: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you’” (Luke 1:35)
Ark spent three months in the house of Obededom the Gittite (2 Samuel 6:11) = Type is
Mary spent three months in the house of Zechariah and Elizabeth (Luke 1:26, 40)
King David asked “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” (2 Samuel 6:9) = Type is
Elizabeth asked Mary, “Why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43)
David Leaped and danced before the Lord when the Ark arrived in Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6:14 - 16) = Type is
John the Baptist leaped for joy in Elizabeth’s womb when Mary arrived (Luke 1:44)
Even the Early Christians saw this.
Some examples....
Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373) was the main defender of the deity of Christ against the second-century heretics. He wrote: “O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O [Ark of the] Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides” (Homily of the Papyrus of Turin).
Gregory the Wonder Worker (c. 213–c. 270) wrote: “Let us chant the melody that has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, ‘Arise, O Lord, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy sanctuary.’ For the Holy Virgin is in truth an ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary” (Homily on the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary).
Pretty overwhelming evidence. Right?
If you don,t think so I have a bridge in NY to sell you -:)
Here, I posted a detailed explanation earlier on this thread
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1848700/posts?page=168#168
Next....
Lets turn to Scripture again.
Luke 1:28 Uses the word “Kecharitomene: to describe Mary,s function,essence and being
The original Greek was kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle of charis, grace. St. Jerome translated it into Latin as gratia plena, “full of grace.” In Greek the perfect stem denotes a completed action with a permanent result. Kecharitomene means completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace. The Protestant Revised Standard Version translates Lk 1:28 as “highly favored daughter.” This is no mere difference of opinion but a conscious effort to distort St. Luke’s original Greek text. Had Mary been no more than “highly favored,” she would have been indistinguishable from Sarah the wife of Abraham, Anna the mother of Samuel, or Elizabeth the mother of John the Baptist, all of whom were long childless and “highly favored” because God acceded to their pleas to bear children. But neither Sarah nor Anna is described as kecharitomene in the Septuagint, a translation by many Jewish scholars of the Hebrew Scriptures for Greek-speaking Jews in Egypt. Nor does Luke use it to describe Elizabeth. Kecharitomene in this usage is reserved for Mary of Nazareth.
The word “kecharitomene” is a perfect passive participle of the verb “charitoo.”
Some have argued that this says nothing unique about Mary since Saint Stephen, just before he is martyred for the faith, is said to be full of grace in Acts 6:8. However a different word form is used to describe Saint Stephen. In the Greek the conjugated form of “charitoo” that is used to describe him is “charitos” not “kecharitomene” that is used in reference to Mary.
Some who oppose the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception have attempted to argue that the use of the verb “charitoo” in Luke 1:28 says nothing special about Mary since this same verb, although in a *different* form, is used to refer to all Christians in Ephesians 1:6.
However, Luke 1:28 uses a special conjugated form of “charitoo.” It uses “kecharitomene,” while Ephesians 1:6 uses “echaritosen,” which is a different form of the verb “charitoo.” Echaritosen means “he graced (bestowed grace.)- Echaritosen signifies a momentary action, an action brought to pass
Saint Luke does not use Mary as her name in Luke 1:28 He Changes it to “Kecharitomene” this is a new name , and we all know that name changes in Scripture are significant - Abram (Hebrew “father”) to Abraham (”father of multitudes), Jacob to Israel, Saul to Paul, Simon to Peter, etc.
This describes her very essence and being.
Mary, is named “kecharitomene” - because she is full of grace-full of perfection
Let me show you How typology is used to describe Prophecies Fulfilled by Jesus Death, Resurrection and Ascension.
Psalm 16:10; 30:3 - He will not be spared from death and yet remain incorrupt - Acts 2:31; 13:33,35 - Jesus conquered death and remained incorrupt.
Psalm 22:1 - My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me? - Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34 - Jesus utters this rabbinical formula from the cross declaring that He is the Messiah.
Psalm 22:7 - the people will wag their heads at Him - Matt. 27:39; Mark 15:29 - the people wagged their heads at Jesus on the cross.
Psalm 22:7 - He will be mocked - Matt. 27:31; Mark 15:20; Luke 22:63; 23:36 - Jesus was mocked.
Psalm 22:16; Isa. 53:12 - He will be numbered with the transgressors - Matt. 27:38; Mark 15:27; Luke 23:32; John 19:18 - Jesus was numbered with the transgressors by being crucified between two thieves.
Psalm 22:16; Zech 12:10 - His hands and feet will be pierced and they will weep for the first-born - John 19:23,34,37 - Jesus’ hands and feet were pierced and his followers wept for Him, the true first-born Son of Israel.
Psalm 22:17 - they will stare and gloat over Him - Matt. 27:36; Luke 23:35 - the people stood by and stared at Jesus on the cross.
Psalm 22:18 - they will divide His garments among them - Matt. 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:23 - they divided Jesus’ garments among them.
Psalm 22:18 - they will cast lots for His garments - Matt. 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:24 - they cast lots for Jesus’ garments.
Psalm 30:3; 41:10, 118:17; Hos 6:2 - He will be raised to life on the third day - Acts 13:33, Matt. 28:6; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:34,46 - Jesus was raised to life on the third day.
Psalm 34:20 - He will not have broken bones - John 19:33,36 - none of Jesus’ bones were broken.
Psalm 41:9; 55:12-14 - He will be betrayed by a friend - Matt. 10:4; 26:20-25; Mark 14:18-21; John 13:18 - Jesus was betrayed by a friend.
Psalm 68:18 - He will ascend into heaven - Mark 16:19; Luke 24:51; John 20:17; Acts 1:9 - Jesus ascended into heaven.
Psalm 68:20 - He will escape the powers of death - Acts 2:31; 13:33; Matt 28:6; Mark 16:6, Luke 24:46; John 20:9-10 - Jesus escaped the powers of death through his resurrection.
Psalm 69:21 - they will give Him vinegar to drink - Matt. 27:34,48; Mark 15:23,36; Luke 23:36; John 19:29 - they gave Jesus vinegar to drink.
Psalm 110:1 - He will sit at the right hand of God - Heb. 1:3; Acts 2:34-35 - Jesus sits at the right hand of God.
Isaiah 50:6 - He will be spat upon - Matt. 26:67; Mark 15:19 - Jesus was spat upon.
Isaiah 50:6; Mic. 5:1 - the ruler of Israel’s cheek will be struck - Matt. 26:67; Luke 22:63; John 18:22 - Jesus was so struck and beaten.
Here is more typology on Old and New Testament Parallels of God the Father and God the Son
Exodus 3:14 - God says “I AM who I AM” - John 8:58 - Jesus says “Before Abraham was, I AM” in reference to Himself.
Deut. 4:2; 12:32 - the Lord God commands that we not add or take away from His word - Rev. 22:18-19 - Jesus so commands us not to add or take away from His word.
Deut. 32:39; 1 Sam. 2:6 - the Lord kills and makes alive again and raises up - John 5:21 - the Son raises and gives life.
Deut. 32:39 - neither is there any that can deliver out of God’s hand - John 10:28 - nor shall any pluck out of Jesus’ hand.
Deut. 32:43 - rejoice, ye heavens, with Him, and let all the angels of God worship Him - Heb. 1:6 - the “Him” is Jesus the Son.
2 Sam. 22:3 - God is the horn of salvation - Luke 1:68-69 - Jesus is the horn of salvation.
Psalm 19:7 - the law of the Lord is perfect - Gal. 6:2 - fulfill the law of Christ.
Psalm 24:10 - the Lord is the King of glory - 1 Cor. 2:8 - Jesus is the Lord of glory.
Psalm 45:7 - Therefore God, your God, has anointed you. God calls someone else God. This someone else is His eternally begotten Son - Heb. 1:9 - Therefore God, your God, has anointed you. cf. Heb. 1:8, 10.
Psalm 62:12 - the Lord God renders to each according to his work - Matt. 16:27; Rev. 22:12 - Jesus so renders to each according to his work
Isaiah 45:23 - to God, every knee shall bow and every tongue swear. Phil. 2:10-11 - at Jesus’ name every knee should bow and tongue confess.
Isaiah 48:17 - God is the Holy One - Acts 3:14 - Jesus is the Holy One.
Isaiah 60:19 - God is everlasting light - Revelation 21:23 - Jesus the Lamb is eternal light.
Jer. 17:10 - the Lord searches the hearts and repays us according to our deeds - Rev. 2:23 - Jesus searches the hearts and repays us according to our deeds.
Now , Here is typology concerning Mary. “The New Eve”
Old Testament Eve- Verses New Testament Mary
Created without original sin, Gen 2:22-25 = Created without original sin, Luke 1:28,42 *1
There was a virgin, Gen 2:22-25 = There is a virgin, Luke 1:27-34
There was a tree, Gen 2:16-17 = There was a cross made from a tree, Matt 27:31-35
There was a fallen angel, Gen 3:1-13 = There was a loyal angel, Luke 1:26-38
A satanic serpent tempted her, Gen 3:4-6 = A satanic dragon threatened her, Rev 12:4-6,13-17
There was pride, Gen 3:4-7 = There was humility, Luke 1:38
There was disobedience, Gen 3:4-7 = There was obedience, Luke 1:38
There was a fall, Gen 3:16-20 = There was redemption, John 19:34
Death came through Eve, Gen 3:17-19 = Life Himself came through Mary, John 10:28
She was mentioned in Genesis 3:2-22 = She was mentioned in Genesis 3:15
Could not approach the tree of life Gen 3:24 = Approached the “Tree of Life”, John 19:25
An angel kept her out of Eden, Gen 3:24 = An angel protected her, Rev 12:7-9
Prophecy of the coming of Christ, Gen 3:15 = The Incarnation of Christ, Luke 2:7
Firstborn was a man child, Gen 4:1 = Firstborn was a man child, Luke 2:7, Rev 12:5
Firstborn became a sinner, Gen 4:1-8 = Firstborn was the Savior, Luke 2:34
The mother of all the living, Gen 3:20 = The spiritual mother of all the living, John 19:27
Mary was PRESERVED from all stain of original sin at her creation so that she would be a “New Creation”, the “New Eve”
Here is what the early Christians said....
“He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, ‘Be it unto me according to thy word.’ And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him.” Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 100 (A.D. 155)
“In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, ‘Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.’ But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise ‘they were both naked, and were not ashamed,’ inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; s so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:22 (A.D. 180).
“For as Eve was seduced by the word of an angel to flee from God, having rebelled against His Word, so Mary by the word of an angel received the glad tidings that she would bear God by obeying his Word. The former was seduced to disobey God, but the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. As the human race was subjected to death through [the act of] a virgin, so it was saved by a virgin.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:19,1 (A.D. 180).
“In what remains we have the appointment of the Father’s will. The Virgin, the birth, the Body, then the Cross, the death, the visit to the lower world; these things are our salvation. For the sake of mankind the Son of God was born of tile Virgin and of the Holy Ghost. In this process He ministered to Himself; by His own power—the power of God—which overshadowed her He sowed the beginning of His Body, and entered on the first stage of His life in the flesh. He did it that by His Incarnation He might take to Himself from the Virgin the fleshly nature, and that through this commingling there might come into being a hallowed Body of all humanity; that so through that Body which He was pleased to assume all mankind might be hid in Him, and He in return, through His unseen existence, be reproduced in all. Thus the invisible Image of God scorned not the shame which marks the beginnings of human life. He passed through every stage; through conception, birth, wailing, cradle and each successive humiliation. What worthy return can we make for so great a condescension? The One Only-begotten God, ineffably born of God, entered the Virgin’s womb and grew and took the frame of poor humanity. He Who upholds the universe, within Whom and through Whom are all things, was brought forth by common childbirth; He at Whose voice Archangels and Angels tremble, and heaven and earth and all the elements of this world are melted, was heard in childish wailing. The Invisible and Incomprehensible, Whom sight and feeling and touch cannot gauge, was wrapped in a cradle.” Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 2:24-25 (A.D. 355).
Dear Friend,It is NOT fitting that the Mother of God should bring shame to Her divine son.Therefor.God preserved Mary from any personal sin,wether mortal or venial.
Through the Grace of God,which was infused into her soul at the moment of her conception,at the very instant He created her soul and united it to her body. He did it in virtue of the merits of Christ.
No descendant of Adam receives the Grace of God except through the merits of Christ.
The Mother of Christ was no exception to this law of Grace.
Like every other human being who is descended of carnal generation from Adam,the blessed virgin Mary need to be redeemed by the blood of Christ,But wheras every other human being needs to be cleansed from the stain of original sin-which has contracted by way of carnal generation from Adam-the Virgin Mary did NOT need to be cleansed from original sin.Through the Grace of Christ she was preserved from the stain of sin.
Mary is closer to Christ than any other human being,because He took flesh from her and dwelt in her womb.
The closer one is to Christ,the source of all Grace,the greater degree of Grace one receives from Christ. Mary,therefor,received from Christ a fullness of Grace not granted to any other creature.
Her Immaculate Conception made her worthy to be Mother of God
Here is more...
Mary as Daughter of Zion is also typed in Scripture
The important thing point out is that in the OT (esp. Isiah, Zephaniah, Zechariah, etc..) there are Messianic prophecies known as the Daughter Zion prophecies which tend to have a similar form. They begin with something like, “rejoice, O Daughter of Zion, for the Lord your God is in your midst..” and continue on with Messianic prophecy. The form of Gabriel’s Annuniciation to Mary matches the form of the Daughter Zion prophecies. This indicates on the one hand that these prophesies are fulfilled with the words of Gabriel which announce the Messianic expectation as being fulfilled at that time.
The prophets words were a foreshadowing of the Annuniciation. Gabriel called Mary Kecharitomene, which I believe captures the essence of Daughter of Zion and points beyond it. Basically Mary is being presented in Luke I & II as representing not just the perfect embodiment of the virtues of what it means to be Israel, she is presented as a certain personification of Israel. She stands in as Israel proper, and the language used throughout the narrative suggests the concept of “corporate personality” which is part of Hebrew thought. There are allusions and types in Luke I & II which further support this (themes and structure in the Magnificat, allusions to Abraham to which this concept of corporate personality applies, Simeon, Judith, etc..). Also, this understanding of what Luke I & II presents about Our Lady is an interpretive key to understanding certain passages in a deeper way (for example Simeon’s prophecy).
It also ties in with themes in John’s writings and sheds light upon them. The thematic parallels between John-Rev & Luke-Acts are many so it’s no surprise that this aspect of Luke I & II would mesh well with John.
Open your Bible and take the time to see the beauty of God,s plan.
I wish you a Blessed Evening!
I will read your long post. But a quick scan tells me I’ve read most of that before.
Something as critical and UNBiblical as the Marian stuff would require a TON of explicit crystal clear Scriptures supporting such.
ASSUMPTIONS, INFERENCES, EXTRAPOLATIONS, TYPES AND SYMBOLS
just will not cut it for me on such an important issue of dogma/doctrine.
Besides, I have found that all of those sorts of things I can recall from your perspective are wholesale WRONG in interpretation; application, specific inferences etc.
You really are barking up the wrong tree.
Sorry you are troubled so about it but that’s just the facts as I see them.
Yada, Yada, Yada! How many times have I seen this????? :-)
This is the second time on this thread I heard you say.... “you are barking up the wrong tree.”
you also said..
“”In addition to Scripture, Holy Spirit within me is fierce on this issue as few others, in my experience.”
It is NOT the Holy Spirit within you who who rejects Catholic teaching on Mary!
It is either your own spirit or something worse!
Again ,You elevate your own thoughts above all the Saints.
I will stake my own Salvation that Catholic teaching on Mary is correct.
Are you willing to say the same?
Actually, I am steadfast in my beliefs because of fact and reason.
And while Luther was a great and Godly man, no human being is infallible except Jesus Christ.
For some insight into the true history of the canon, try this...
The Christian faith is based upon God's own self-revelation, not the conflicting opinions or untrustworthy speculations of men. As the Apostle Paul wrote: "your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God" (I Cor. 2:5)... Application of Canonicity In terms of the previous discussion, then, what should we make of the Roman Catholic decision in 1546 (the Council of Trent) to accept as canonical the apocryphal books of "Tobit," "Judith," "Wisdom," "Ecclesiasticus," "Baruch," "I and II Maccabees"? Such books do not claim for themselves ultimate divine authority. Consider the boldness of Paul's writing ("if anyone thinks he is spiritual, let him acknowledge that what I write is the commandment of the Lord" -- I Cor. 14:37-38; if anyone "preaches any other gospel that what we preached to you, let him be accursed" - Gal. 1:8). Then contrast the insecure tone of the author of II Maccabees: "if it is poorly done and mediocre, that was the best I could do" (15:38). Moreover, when the author relates that Judas confidently encouraged his troops, that boldness came "from the law and the prophets" (15:9), as though this were already a recognized and authoritative body of literature to him and his readers. (This is also reflected in the prologue to Ecclesiasticus.) I Maccabees 9:27 recognizes the time in the past when "prophets ceased to appear among" the Jews. The ancient Jews, to whom were entrusted the "oracles of God" (Rom. 3:2), never accepted these apocryphal books as part of the inspired canon -- and still do not to this day.[4] Josephus speaks of the number of Jewish books which are divinely trustworthy, not leaving a place for the apocryphal books. Josephus expressed the common Jewish perspective when he said that the prophets wrote from the time of Moses to that of Artaxerxes, and that no writing since that time had the same authority. The Jewish Talmud teaches that the Holy Spirit departed from Israel after the time of Malachi. Now, Artaxerxes and Malachi both lived about four centuries before Christ, while the books of the Apocrypha were composed in the vicinity of two centuries before Christ. When Christ came, neither He nor the apostles ever quoted from the apocryphal books as though they carried authority. Throughout the history of the early church, the acceptance of the Apocrypha was no better than spotty, inconsistent, and of ambiguous import -- the bottom line being that the books never gained universal respect and clear recognition as bearing the same weight and authority as the very Word of God. The first early Christian writer to address explicitly the question of an accurate list of the books of the Old Covenant was Melito (bishop of Sardis, about 170 A.D.), and he does not countenance any of the apocryphal books. Athanasius forthrightly rejected Tobit, Judith, and Wisdom, saying of them: "for the sake of greater accuracy... there are other books outside these [just listed] which are not indeed included in the canon" (39th festal letter, 367 A.D.).[5] The scholar Jerome was the main translator of the Latin Vulgate (which Roman Catholicism later decreed has ultimate authority for determining doctrine). About 395 A.D., Jerome enumerated the books of the Hebrew Bible, saying "whatever falls outside these must be set apart among the Apocrypha." He then lists books now accepted by the Roman Catholic church and categorically says they "are not in the canon." He later wrote that such books are read "for edification of the people but not for establishing the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas." Likewise, many years later (about 1140 A.D.), Hugo of St. Victor lists the "books of holy writ," adding "There are also in the Old Testament certain other books which are indeed read [in church] but are not inscribed...in the canon of authority"; here he lists books of the apocrypha. The apocryphal books were sometimes highly regarded or cited for their antiquity or for their historical, moral, or literary value,[6] but the conceptual distance between "valuable" and "divinely inspired" is considerable. Thus the 1395 Wycliffe version of the Bible in English included the Apocrypha and commends the book of Tobit in particular, yet also acknowledges that Tobit "is not of belief" -- that is, not in the same class as inspired books which can be used for confirming Christian doctrine. Likewise, the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England (1562) names the canonical books of Scripture in one separate class, and then introduces a list of apocryphal books by saying: "And the other books the Church doth read for example of life... by yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine."[7] This is likewise the attitude of most Roman Catholic scholars today, who regard the books of the Apocrypha as only "deutercanonical" (of secondary authority).[8] The Protestant churches have never received these writings as canonical, even though they have sometimes been reprinted for historical value. Even some Roman Catholic scholars during the Reformation period disputed the canonical status of the apocryphal books, which were accepted (at this late date) it would seem because of their usefulness in opposing Luther and the reformers -- that is, for contemporary and political purposes, rather than the theological and historical ones in our earlier discussion. Finally, the books of the Apocrypha abound in doctrinal, ethical, and historical errors. For instance, Tobit claims to have been alive when Jeroboam revolted (931 B.C.) and when Assyria conquered Israel (722 B.C.), despite the fact that his lifespan was only a total of 158 years (Tobit 1:3-5; 14:11)! Judith mistakenly identifies Nebuchadnezzar as king of the Assyrians (1:1, 7). Tobit endorses the superstitious use of fish liver to ward off demons (6: 6,7)! The theological errors are equally significant. Wisdom of Solomon teaches the creation of the world from pre-existent matter (7:17). II Maccabees teaches prayers for the dead (12:45-46), and Tobit teaches salvation by the good work of almsgiving (12:9) -- quite contrary to inspired Scripture (such as John 1:3; II Samuel 12:19; Hebrews 9:27; Romans 4:5; Galatians 3:11). The conclusion to which we come is that the books of the Roman Catholic Apocrypha fail to demonstrate the characteristic marks of inspiration and authority. They are not self-attesting, but rather contradict God's Word elsewhere. They were not recognized by God's people from the outset as inspired and have never gained acceptance of the church universal as communicating the full authority of God's own Word. We must concur with the Westminster Confession, when it says: "The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings" (I, 3).Scripture as Final Authority
Calvin's "spiritual descendants" are guided by the Holy Spirit, by the grace of God, and the one, holy, catholic, apostolic church was founded by Jesus Christ and is not wrong.
The church in Rome, however, errs substantially.
Amazing.
Are you sure you are saved?
Holy Spirit has been a faithful guide for most of my 60 years. He nor I take kindly to His being accused of being anything or anyone less than He is. Indeed, one blasphemous accusation is exceedingly hazardous according to Scripture.
In terms of asserting as it were to put my salvation at risk—
in terms of the facts of the matter, it would be an exceedingly safe bet.
However, I do not take such vows, make such bets as I believe all such to be UNBiblical in principle. I find it alarming that you’d even consider it yourself or ask it of anyone about anything.
BTW, I have done battle with spirits of darkness multiple times. I think I know something of the difference between the voices of darkness and The Voice of Holy Spirit. I find those who do not know me asserting the contrary to be EXCEEDINGLY insulting but most of all to Holy Spirit.
I do not let it harm our relationship because I think I understand something of your perspective. But I must let you know—I find it EXCEEDINGLY INSULTING TO THE MAX.
I realize you are not thrilled at my perspective on Mary. That’s the realities of the great gulf between our two perspectives.
I do propose the following . . . It’s not a certainty . . . just a kind of personal conjecture . . . my personal conjecture is that as the END TIMES progress, whatever God’s mercy and Grace may humor folks along the lines of the Mary stuff will become obviously on the side of light and Righteousness. I don’t expect much but hold that out as a theoretical possibility.
Whatever elements of the Mary stuff are from the pit—will end up allied more and more with the world religion; changes toward the world religion etc. I suspect there may be a fair number of such. But we shall see.
I will also note that of all the RC’s I know face to face . . . There are a handful who I consider in a close vibrant walk with Jesus The Christ and who are as sensitive to The Voice of Holy Spirit as any Pentecostal.
ABSOLUTELY NONE OF THEM support the Mary dogma. Not a single one. They have been life long RC’s and are exceedingly well trained in all the doctrines and the justifications for them. I find that very telling.
I assert again, It is wholesale off the wall to pretend that THE WOMAN in Revelation refers to Mary. There is no way on earth or in Heaven that such will fit the whole counsel of God in Scripture as well as the logic related there to and certainly not Holy Spirit’s instructions within.
Respectfully,
You either believe that quix-a blogger on free republic is guide by the Holy Spirit in the Blessed Mother,s role of Salvation History ... or you believe that the Saints were guided by the Holy Spirit in the Blessed Mother,s role in salvation history.
I will trust my Salvation on the side of the Saints!
This from a perspective
which has claimed persistently . . .
that essentially
the Mary dogmas
were super holy, pristine and complete the first century
yet have also noted that at least one was finalized as late as 1940!
Evidently that perspective has no clue about how absurd that makes them look.
There is one Old Testament type you forgot concerning the over reaching in the elevation of the status of Mary:
Jer 7:17 Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem?
Jer 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead [their] dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.
Jer 7:19 Do they provoke me to anger? saith the LORD: [do they] not [provoke] themselves to the confusion of their own faces?
INDEED.
I suspect the response will be some variation on . . .
not THAT Queen of Heaven! LOL. Sigh.
The Scripture you point to does not apply or deny the Blessed Mother her role as “New Eve” or Ark of the New Covenant.
You can Not put the scripture side by side in typology to deny Mary these roles and show that that ANY early Christian agrees with you.
Good night . I wish everyone a Blessed Evening!
“The Scripture you point to does not apply or deny the Blessed Mother her role as “New Eve” or Ark of the New Covenant.”
Well, how’s this for typology, with a not too insignificant nod to that great masterpiece of early church history, “Monty Python, Search for the Holy Grail”.
The ark is made of wood so ..............
LOL.
Sending a FREEPMAIL funny since it would jangle too many sensibilities openly.
Given . . . well . . . anyway.
That is the real 'Mary' of the RCC.
Amen.
827. To this I shall add this most important fact. Mary, the Lord's mother, once passed by; she was seen overhead, in white clothing. Then she paused to say that she had been the Lord's mother, and He was born to her; but that on becoming God He had put off everything human He derived from her, and she now therefore worships Him as her God, and does not want anyone to acknowledge Him as her son, since everything in Him is Divine.
Interesting.
Interesting that you tell the whole forum about sending a “FREEPMAIL FUNNY that would jangle too many sensibilities openly”.
Open forum is open forum and FReepmails—I understood—are private. As such, they don’t need advertising.
BTW, there doesn’t seem to be anything intrinsically wrong with “sensibilities”.
Webster: senesibilty: sensitive responsiveness to intellectual, moral or aesthetic values.
senesibility=sensibility
"All the saints?" That is wholly disingenuous and grossly inaccurate, friend. Many saints of the church did not believe in some of the Roman Catholic Church's presently held dogmatic views. The Assumption of Mary and the Immaculate Conception weren't dogmatized until relatively recently (the past 150 years) when documented ex cathedra (which concept itself wasn't dogmatized until 1870).
So no...I stake my salvation in Christ alone, not in the teachings of an earthly institution about Mary.
You either believe that quix-a blogger on free republic is guide by the Holy Spirit in the Blessed Mother,s role of Salvation History ... or you believe that the Saints were guided by the Holy Spirit in the Blessed Mother,s role in salvation history.
I will trust my Salvation on the side of the Saints!
My salvation rests in neither Quix's words nor the words of your Roman Catholic Church. It rests on the Word of God and the Person of Christ, neither of which are glorified in the Roman Catholic dogmatic doctrines concerning Mary's Assumption, Immaculate Conception or role in redemption.
I daresay many of your Roman Catholic bretheren are not placing the hope of their very salvation on their beliefs in Mary.
Your OWN Salvation.
I suppose if you saved yourself, then it is yours to bet.
Swedenborg is a heretic who denies the Trinity.
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.