Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Mary Appears/The Mariology Gap (Cath-Orth Caucus)
Zenit News ^ | 2008-09-03 | Irene Lagan

Posted on 09/04/2008 3:24:18 PM PDT by annalex

ZE08090302 - 2008-09-03
Permalink: http://www.zenit.org/article-23539?l=english

Why Mary Appears


Interview With Mariologist Mark Miravalle (Part 1)

By Irene Lagan

STEUBENVILLE, Ohio, SEPT. 3, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Private Marian apparitions serve to remind mankind that God exists, and to provide an opportunity to conduct a "global examination of conscience," according to Mariologist Mark Miravalle.

The professor of theology at Franciscan University of Steubenville will be a speaker at the 22nd International Mariological Marian Congress, to begin Thursday in Lourdes.

The congresses, held every four years, are sponsored by the Pontifical International Marian Academy. This year's theme is "The Apparitions of the Most Holy Virgin Mary: Between History, Faith and Theology."

Benedict XVI named Cardinal Paul Poupard, retired president of the Pontifical Councils for Culture and Interreligious Dialogue, as his special envoy to the Marian conference. The Pope will visit the shrine later this month for the 150th anniversary of the Marian apparitions.

Miravalle, author of "Mariology: A Guide for Priests, Deacons, and Seminarians, and Consecrated Persons" (Queenship Publishing), discusses in the first part of this interview with ZENIT the significance of the congress and the importance of Marian apparitions for our times.

Part 2 of this interview will appear Thursday.

Q. What is the significance of this congress, one week before the Pope's visit to Lourdes, and what is the significance of Benedict XVI's Lourdes pilgrimage?

Miravalle: The Holy Father does not hesitate to celebrate authentic Marian private revelation nor does the Church, as is evidenced by his Lourdes visit. Pope Benedict is quick to acknowledge one of the world's most renowned Marian fonts of conversion, grace and healing that has flowed to the five continents through the true apparitions of the Immaculate Conception at Lourdes.

Pope Benedict XVI, as did John Paul II before him, also acknowledges the organic connection between the Lourdes apparitions and the particular trials of the sick throughout the world, which is recognized every year on the Lourdes anniversary of Feb. 11, now designated as the World Day of the Sick.

This Holy Father is very much following the course of John Paul II in highlighting Our Lady's co-redemptive role with Jesus as the perfect model for the people of God on how we should patiently "offer up" our sufferings and illnesses in union with Christ for the mysterious release of grace for others, making us co-redeemers as well.

Hopefully, the anticipatory Mariological-Marian congress can help prepare for the Pope's visit by presenting and articulating the theology of the Church regarding Marian private revelation.

Q. What is the purpose of this congress?

Miravalle: I believe the purpose of the conference is to theologically and scientifically examine the domain of Marian private revelation, in its nature, its history, and its contemporary relevance.

As Rene Laurentin summarized, the Church essentially examines the three criteria of message, phenomena and spiritual fruits when discerning a reported revelation.

Laurentin also mentioned once that if Lourdes happened today it would probably not be accepted in light of the heightened scepticism and rationalism of our times. In this age of greater rationalism, materialism, consumerism and humanism, the possibility of the supernatural seems more and more diminished for the common person.

And yet, God continues to "interfere" in human history by sending the Mother of Jesus, particularly in times when a more rationalistic vision has made acts of Christian faith more difficult. The human family needs to be reminded, sometimes in a dynamic and supernatural way, that God exists, that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is a universal call, that we all will be held responsible for our human choices, and that, over all, the world could benefit from a type of "global examination of conscience" on how well we are responding to the ubiquitous invitations from the "Hound of Heaven," as the poet [Francis] Thompson refers to God, for personal salvation and for world peace. But it remains up to us to respond.

The Church is appropriately both cautious and open to the domain of private revelation. She can never run the risk of losing credibility as guardian of public revelation by a too hasty confirmation of a reported private revelation, let alone something false. And yet, we can see the sublimely generous fruits of authentic Marian private revelation, which is but a heavenly spark to compel the world to living the saving message of the Gospel in the fullness of the Church, and as well to assist the Church's ongoing mission of evangelization.

Imagine the 16th century without Guadalupe, or the 19th and 20th centuries without Rue du Bac, Lourdes and Fatima. While always remaining obedient to the Church's definitive judgment on a given revelation, we should thank God for the tremendous graces and blessings brought to the world through the avenue of authentic Marian apparitions.

Q: Are there more reported and approved Marian apparitions in this age than in other ages?

Miravalle: There have been more apparitions approved in the contemporary era than in any other era in the Church's history. We must keep in mind that the nature and purpose of private revelation is never to replace public revelation contained in Scripture and Tradition, but rather to accentuate the more challenging aspects of the Gospel. For example, the call to be more generous in prayer, to fasting regularly, and to committed conversion, which alone leads to a spiritual peace of heart.

If true Marian apparitions are on the increase in our times, it means our age is in greater need of encouragement to live generously the prayer and sacramental life of the Church. We should be grateful, but we should also, as Blessed Pope John XXIII said in his Feb. 18, 1959, Lourdes address, "listen attentively to the salutary warnings of the Mother of God," which seek to "guide us in our conduct."

Q: What topic will you be discussing at the Lourdes congress?

Miravalle: My presentation will be on the theme of Mary's unique cooperation in the redemption as it appears in the 19th- and 20th-century approved Marian apparitions.

In the apparitions of the "Miraculous Medal" in 1830, Lourdes in 1858, Fatima in 1917, Amsterdam in 1945, and Akita, Japan, in the 1970s, the theme of Our Lady's co-redemption, as well as the Marian call for Christian co-redemption by the people of God is a pronounced, consistent theme.

The Mother of Jesus uniquely shared as "Co-redemptrix" with Jesus in accomplishing the world's redemption. But we are all called to offer prayer and penance to God in reparation for sin and for the conversion of sinners throughout this Marian message to the modern world.

Bernadette echoed Our Lady's call for "penance, penance, penance." Our Lady of Fatima asked the children visionaries to daily pray the rosary for conversion of sinners and world peace, to "make of everything you can a sacrifice," and Our Lady appeared as "Our Lady of Sorrows" during the Oct. 13, 1917, apparition of the solar miracle.

The statue of the Lady of All Nations at Akita, Japan, wept 101 times and the apparitions and phenomena were declared supernatural by Bishop [John] Ito of Niigata after consultation with Cardinal [Joseph] Ratzinger in 1984. The apparitions of the Lady of All Nations, approved by Bishop [Joseph] Punt of Amsterdam as authentic in 2002, furthered the call for Christian co-redemption as well as for the solemn definition of Mary as co-redemptrix, mediatrix and advocate.

It should be no surprise that the truth of Our Lady's unique role with Jesus in redemption as taught explicitly by the magisterium during the last two centuries is mirrored in the domain of ecclesiastically approved private revelation from the same historical time period.

Q. The theme of Mary as co-redemptrix is also the subject of discussion concerning a possible fifth Marian dogma. What would be the potential benefits of proclaiming this dogma at this time for the Church?

Miravalle: I believe a papal definition would have numerous positive effects for the Church. It would articulate this perennial doctrine of Our Lady's unique role, which is entirely dependent on Jesus Christ, divine and human redeemer of all, with the greatest possible scriptural and theological clarity. It's hard to think of a more a capable pontiff for such a definition than our own genial Pope-theologian, Pope Benedict, if he would so desire to make this proclamation.

I also believe that this dogma would serve the ecumenical mission of the Church by assuring other Christian traditions that the Catholic Church does distinguish between Jesus Christ as the divine and human Redeemer upon whom all redemption depends, and the unique participation of his immaculate human mother in the history of salvation.

The dogma would also focus the people of God upon their Christian duty to participate in the salvation of others. Would this not be the antidote to the isolation and loneliness of so many? Is this not answering the call to the new evangelism, and the call of Our Lady of Fatima to pray and do penance for the conversion of sinners? It would in fact be a clear answer on the part of the Church for all those who fear that suffering is meaningless. On the contrary, for the Christian, human suffering is always supernaturally and eternally redemptive.

--- --- ---

On the Net:

Miravalle's "Mariology": www.queenship.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=6568


© Innovative Media, Inc.


ZE08090401 - 2008-09-04
Permalink: http://www.zenit.org/article-23547?l=english

The Mariology Gap


Interview With Mariologist Mark Miravalle (Part 2)

Source for Part 2


By Irene Lagan

STEUBENVILLE, Ohio, SEPT. 4, 2008 (Zenit.org).- After the Second Vatican Council there was a gap in interest in Mariology, one that Mariologist Mark Miravalle has sought to fill with a comprehensive compilation of the Church's teaching on Mary.

Mark Miravalle, professor of theology at Franciscan University of Steubenville, is the editor of "Mariology: A Guide for Priests, Deacons, and Seminarians, and Consecrated Persons" (Queenship Publishing).

He will also be a speaker at the 22nd International Mariological Marian Congress, to begin Thursday in Lourdes.

The congresses, held every four years, are sponsored by the Pontifical International Marian Academy. This year's theme is "The Apparitions of the Most Holy Virgin Mary: Between History, Faith and Theology."

In part two of this interview with ZENIT, Miravalle comments on how the gap in Mariology came about, and how Pope John Paul II was key to filling it.

Part 1 of this interview appeared Wednesday.

Q: What is the purpose of the book?

Miravalle: The intention of this work is to compile a postconciliar, single volume on Mariology that would be helpful for priests, deacons, religious, seminarians, and consecrated persons (as well as for educated laity).

Before the Second Vatican Council, the U.S. Mariologist, Father Juniper Carol, produced a three-volume work on Mariology in which he essentially assigned a chapter to a respected theologian in the systematic study of the theology of Mary. Unfortunately there has not been a similar work done in English since the Council.

Over the years, many priests and religious have mentioned that they felt a certain "gap" in their previous formation with regard to the theology of Marian dogma and devotion, either during their seminary instruction or their religious formation. Our first intention with this work was therefore to serve clergy and religious as well as consecrated persons in filling that gap with a rich and a contemporary Mariology within the obvious limits of a single volume work.

I therefore contacted Mariologists from a diversity of countries, including Italy, Spain, France, Switzerland, and the United States, and as well from different universities and Mariological societies, and asked each to contribute one chapter concerning a dogmatic, doctrinal, liturgical or devotional truth about the Mother of the Lord, which would be in complete conformity with the directions of the Second Vatican Council, as well as conveying the Church's sublime tradition on the Mother of Jesus.

The work reflects what Pope Benedict would call a "hermeneutics of continuity" with the rich Mariology before the Council, coupled with the inspired Mariological insights of the Council and postconciliar magisterium, especially the extraordinary contributions of John Paul II. Hence, the work seeks to present the best of Classical Mariology, but also provide a contemporary theology of Mary as a result of the Second Vatican Council.

Q. How do you account for the lack of Mariological studies since the Council?

Miravalle: It is interesting that theologians like Cardinal Ratzinger have made reference to the years following the Council as a "decade without Mary." This is certainly not due to the Council's authentic Mariological teachings, but to various erroneous interpretations of the council that the council fathers as a whole sought to de-emphasize the role of Mary in the Church. The generous and genial Mariology of the "Totus Tuus" Pontiff, Servant of God John Paul II, was the greatest single corrective in returning Mariological trends back to the best of both classical Mariology and conciliar Mariology.

Q. What gave you the inspiration for this book?

Miravalle: Apart from the aforesaid need to fill in gaps of authentic Mariological study for some members of today's clergy, religious, and consecrated persons, was the papacy and person of John Paul II. Once again, I believe John Paul II single handedly directed a course of both Christo-typical (or Christ-centered) Mariology and ecclesio-typical (or Church-centered) Mariology at a time when it appeared theologians felt compelled to choose either one or the other.

John Paul's Mariology manifested the perfect harmony of appreciating how Our Lady uniquely participates as co-redemptrix in the redemption brought by Jesus Christ, and her subsequent role of maternal mediation and advocacy in service to humanity; and at the same time, how the Immaculate Mother of God is the perfect model for the people of God as co-redeemers and intercessors for each other and for all humanity. Hence, John Paul II's "both and" approach to understanding Mary's unique role with Jesus and being the perfect model in the life of the Church really points to the correct hermeneutic for understanding Mariology today.

Recently in August, Pope Benedict offered profound comments regarding the sufferings of John Paul II in his later life, sufferings which our present Holy Father said released a "redeeming force" of love through the "passion" of his Totus Tuus predecessor. That's precisely being a co-redeemer in Christ after the model of Mary Co-redemptrix.

The co-redemptive sufferings of Mary with Jesus become a perfect model of Christian co-redemption for every member of the Church.

Looking first at Mary's uniqueness in relation to Jesus will never take away from her relevance to the Church. As we see that we, as the People of God, did not give birth to Jesus; are not immaculately conceived; that we will not be immediately assumed into heaven at the end of our earthly life, and that we do not mediate grace for humanity as she does, should make clear to us the primacy of Mary as not simply the eldest daughter of the Church but as "Mother of the Church" and she holds perfections and subsequent roles beyond all others in the body of Christ.

At the same time, we are called to follow her example in the way we are called to suffer our daily crosses as members of the Church and unite them to the sufferings of Jesus and Mary for the redemption of others -- as did our co-redemptrix -- to be instruments of intercessory prayer for each other. As we battle on this earthly pilgrim journey for our own heavenly crowns, we can still revere her as the unique and unparalleled Queen of heaven and earth.

Q. Is there a particular emphasis in the book?

Miravalle: The challenge of the council fathers to theologians given in "Lumen Gentium" paragraph 54 was to continue the work regarding Mariological questions that still called for further study.

Foremost in this category would be how Mary shared in the saving mission of Jesus Christ, or the Mariological genus of what John Paul commonly termed, "maternal mediation." This is why there is a particular emphasis in these essays on Marian co-redemption and mediation.

Actually, several times already this year, Pope Benedict XVI has offered the same emphasis on Mary's role with Jesus in the historic redemption of humanity. For example, in his Feb. 11, 2008, letter on the World Day of the Sick -- so closely associated with Lourdes -- the Holy Father teaches Mary's unique sharing with Jesus in the redemptive passion at Calvary, and as well makes reference to Our Lady's sharing in the sufferings of her earthly children in the midst of their trials and crosses of today.

In his prayer composed for the people of China, the Pope addresses our Lady of Sheshan by recalling Mary's saving "Yes" at the annunciation in connection to her unique suffering of Calvary. The words of the prayer make explicit the connection between Mary's fiat and her cooperation in the work of redemption, ultimately allowing the sword of pain to pierce her own soul at Calvary.

So it appears that Pope Benedict is likewise contributing to "complete" the study and recognition of Our Lady's co-redemption and mediation for humanity.

Q: Does this volume seek to support the Church's efforts for a new evangelization?

Miravalle: As I mentioned previously, the book is intended to be a service to clergy, religious, and consecrated lay persons and all those who wish to gain a deeper understanding of what John Paul II used to call "the whole truth about Mary." But it's also a work for lay evangelists who find that preaching the truth about Mary is the best preparation for a full acceptance of Christ in the fullness of his Church.

The first great evangelization started with a "yes" from the Virgin of Nazareth. The second great evangelization at Guadalupe, which lead to the largest Catholic continent in the world, began by sending the Mother to prepare the way for the Son.

For the present third great evangelization, we should follow the same format as God the Father used for the first two: Prepare the way through the Virgin Mother of God.

The whole truth about Mary is the best means to teach the whole truth about Jesus and the truth about his saving incarnation, redemption and his Church. Teaching about Mary leads to belief in the real Jesus, both God and man. The uncompromised teaching of the full truth about Mary will always safeguard the full truth about Jesus, and hence serve to be the most efficacious and effective guiding star and mediating force for the present new evangelization.

--- --- ---

On the Net:

Miravalle's "Mariology": www.queenship.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=6568

© Innovative Media, Inc.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: apologetics; catholic; theology; worship
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last

1 posted on 09/04/2008 3:24:18 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: andysandmikesmom; Antoninus; ArrogantBustard; celticfreedom; CTK YKC; dan1123; DaveMSmith; ...
If you want to be on the Catholic Theology for non-Catholics list but are not on it already, or if you are on it but do not want to be, let me know either publicly or privately.

The topic of co-redemptive role of Blessed Virgin Mary tends to be an occasion of sin for many opposed to the doctrine. For that reason, this is a caucus thread, but if you have questions, I am sure someone will be happy to answer. Caucus threads do not permit polemical comparisons between caucus and non-caucus belief systems.

Previously posted:

On Salvation Outside the Catholic Church
The Great Heresies
SALVATION PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE
JUSTIFICATION IN CATHOLIC TEACHING
Hermits and Solitaries [Ecumenical]
THE PRIESTHOOD DEBATE
RIGHTEOUSNESS AND MERIT
A Well-Rounded Pope [Ecumenical]
A Monastery to Last 1,000 Years [Ecumenical]
Explaining Purgatory from a New Testament Perspective [Ecumenical]
In the Crosshairs of the Canon [How We Got The Bible] [Ecumenical]
'An Ordinance Forever' - The Biblical Origins of the Mass [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Church Authority In Scripture [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Catholic Tradition: Life in the Spirit [Ecumenical]
Christian Atheism
Vatican plea to uncover Virgin Mary and show her breast-feeding baby Jesus
Why do Catholics have to confess their sins to a priest instead of praying straight to God? [Ecu]
Our Times: The Age of Martyrs
The Eucharist - the Lord's Sacrifice, Banquet and Presence
Beginning Catholic: Catholic Morality: Life in Christ [Ecumenical]
Chosen In Him: The Catholic Teaching on Predestination [Ecumenical]
The Sacraments [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: A Strong Start in the Faith: The Catholic RCIA Stages [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: The RCIA Inquiry Stage In the Catholic Church [Ecumenical]
Catholic Art
Evangelicals: Change of Heart toward Catholics
Beginning Catholic: The Creed Of The People Of God: The Essentials/Catholic Belief [Ecumenical]
An open letter to Mr. Stephen A. Baldwin, Actor, and “born again” Christian.
Beginning Catholic: Catholic Purgatory: What Does It Mean? [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: The Kingdom of God — Taking The Center Of Christ's Teaching Into The Heart Of Your Faith
The Language of Love
Beginning Catholic: The Essentials: Basic Catholic Prayers [Ecumenical]

2 posted on 09/04/2008 3:29:43 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; NYer; narses; Kolokotronis

For your pinging pleasure.


3 posted on 09/04/2008 3:36:25 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; nickcarraway; Romulus; ...
Here is one apparition that both Catholics and Orthodox acknowledge.

The Apparitions Of Virgin Mary At Zeitoun, Egypt

4 posted on 09/04/2008 3:52:09 PM PDT by NYer ("Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ." - St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

i have read over these sites many times and never failed to impressed and happy that christ has blessed us with visions of his mother...

the apparitions appear to be real...what is the so-called ‘secular scientific’ view of all this?

God bless....


5 posted on 09/04/2008 4:25:55 PM PDT by raygunfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer

My opinion is that to proclaim the co-redemptrix dogma would alienate the Orthodox for another few centuries. It is fine as a theolegoumenon, but as a dogma it will be unnecessarily divisive.


6 posted on 09/04/2008 4:56:23 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Excellent find.


7 posted on 09/04/2008 5:11:02 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: annalex

B16 has already said that he will not declare her Co-redemptrix so it’s a moot point.


8 posted on 09/04/2008 5:17:46 PM PDT by netmilsmom (If John's McCain's spirit was not broken by the Hanoi Hilton, it won't be by the angry left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: annalex
"occasion of sin for many opposed to the doctrine."

would you clarify this statement?

9 posted on 09/04/2008 5:48:04 PM PDT by guitarplayer1953 (Psalm 83:1-8 is on the horizon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: annalex

“My opinion is that to proclaim the co-redemptrix dogma would alienate the Orthodox for another few centuries.”

That’s certainly true.

“It is fine as a theolegoumenon, but as a dogma it will be unnecessarily divisive.”

I don’t think it even makes the grade of theologoumenon. I suspect most Orthodox Christians would call it a Christological heresy. I am baffled that anyone would believe such a thing and wonder what possible reason there could be for such a belief.


10 posted on 09/04/2008 6:45:35 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953

I have seen many threads where people seem to feel it necessary to variously insult or bring down the Mother of God and people who venerate her and seek her protection. All that is sinful.


11 posted on 09/04/2008 7:11:16 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
It would be wrong if Catholic mariology were what diverse non-Catohlics ascribe it to us. However, when Miravalle advocates for the putative dogma, he makes clear that Mary co--redemptive role is akin, albeit unique, to the redemptive suffering of all faithful, and is therefore doing nothing to orthodox christology:

Miravalle: I believe a papal definition would have numerous positive effects for the Church. It would articulate this perennial doctrine of Our Lady's unique role, which is entirely dependent on Jesus Christ, divine and human redeemer of all, with the greatest possible scriptural and theological clarity. It's hard to think of a more a capable pontiff for such a definition than our own genial Pope-theologian, Pope Benedict, if he would so desire to make this proclamation.

I also believe that this dogma would serve the ecumenical mission of the Church by assuring other Christian traditions that the Catholic Church does distinguish between Jesus Christ as the divine and human Redeemer upon whom all redemption depends, and the unique participation of his immaculate human mother in the history of salvation.

The dogma would also focus the people of God upon their Christian duty to participate in the salvation of others. Would this not be the antidote to the isolation and loneliness of so many? Is this not answering the call to the new evangelism, and the call of Our Lady of Fatima to pray and do penance for the conversion of sinners? It would in fact be a clear answer on the part of the Church for all those who fear that suffering is meaningless. On the contrary, for the Christian, human suffering is always supernaturally and eternally redemptive.


12 posted on 09/04/2008 7:19:03 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: annalex

I understand what your saying but Mary was the mother of the man Jesus not the Mother of God. Since Jesus preExisted before Mary was ever born. So to say she is the mother of God is false.


13 posted on 09/04/2008 7:40:22 PM PDT by guitarplayer1953 (Psalm 83:1-8 is on the horizon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: annalex; kosta50

“However, when Miravalle advocates for the putative dogma, he makes clear that Mary co—redemptive role is akin, albeit unique, to the redemptive suffering of all faithful, and is therefore doing nothing to orthodox christology:”

If the Roman Church wants to make heretics out of 350,000,000 Orthodox Christians there isn’t much we can do about it. But I think every Roman Catholic, whether laity, clergy or hierarch, should understand that this “dogma” will guarantee that there will likely never be any reunion, indeed that the promulgation will be an example, in Orthodox eyes, of the the sort of “unorthodox” ecclesiology and uncontrolled theology which even today threatens to contaminate Eastern Christianity on account of its dialogs with Rome. Finally, those who advocate for this dangerous innovation must accept that it will frankly bring joy to the large majority of Orthodox as they will see it as the final nail in the coffin of a sort of ecumenism with which they profoundly disagree. I will be one of those Orthodox.


14 posted on 09/04/2008 7:46:28 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953
Jesus indeed pre-existed her, but nevertheless she gave birth to His Person. What you are doing is separating the natures of Christ as if one could give birth to a nature rather than to a person. This is a dispute that the Church resolved at the council of Ephesus in 4c.:

The Council of Ephesus was held in 431 at the Church of Mary in Ephesus, Asia Minor. The council was called due to the contentious teachings of Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople. St. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, appealed to Pope Celestine, charging Nestorius with heresy. The Pope agreed and gave Cyril his authority to serve a notice to Nestorius to recant his views or else be excommunicated. Before the summons arrived, Nestorius convinced the Emperor Theodosius II, to hold a General council, a platform to argue their opposing views. Approximately 200 bishops were present. The proceedings were conducted in a heated atmosphere of confrontation and recriminations. It is counted as the Third Ecumenical Council, and was chiefly concerned with Nestorianism.

Nestorianism emphasized the dual natures of Christ. Patriarch Nestorius tried to answer a question considered unsolved: "How can Jesus Christ, being part man, not be partially a sinner as well, since man is by definition a sinner since the Fall". To solve that he taught that Mary, the mother of Jesus gave birth to the incarnate Christ, not the divine Logos who existed before Mary and indeed before time itself. The Logos occupied the part of the human soul (the part of man that was stained by the Fall). But wouldn't the absence of a human soul make Jesus less human? No, Nestorius answered because the human soul was based on the archetype of the Logos only to become polluted by the Fall, therefore Jesus was "more" human for having the Logos and not "less". Consequently, Mary should be called Christotokos, Greek for the "Christ-Bearer" and not Theotokos, Greek for the "God-Bearer." Cyril argued that Nestorianism split Jesus in half and denied that he was both human and divine. This was essentially a Christological controversy.

At the urging of its president, Cyril of Alexandria, the Council denounced Nestorius' teaching as erroneous and decreed that Jesus was one person, not two separate people: complete God and complete man, with a rational soul and body. The Virgin Mary was to be called Theotokos because she bore and gave birth to God as a man. This council was originally disputed, however, because Cyril started the council prematurely, without all the legates and bishops present. This caused the Eastern bishops, led by John of Antioch, to hold a competing council where they disputed Cyril's council. Over time, Cyril would eventually triumph. This did not resolve the debate over the union of the two natures of Christ, and related issues were debated at the Council of Chalcedon.

Wiki (links, footnotes at source)


15 posted on 09/04/2008 7:49:20 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; kosta50
If the Roman Church wants to make heretics out of 350,000,000 Orthodox Christians...

Like I said, I don't think she does, but neither is noticing the redemptive role of Mary -- to whom the Orthodox, after all, pray "Theotokos, save us", -- heretical.

16 posted on 09/04/2008 7:52:30 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Yes Jesus is both man and God the bible say that the Holy Spirit conceived within Mary Jesus. Therefore Mary is but a vessel that carried the man God. It would be the same if you and your wife could not have children and you took an egg from her and a seed from you and placed it in a third person to carry the baby, that person gave birth to you and your wife’s egg and seed. The same is with Mary she was only a vessel.


17 posted on 09/04/2008 7:59:29 PM PDT by guitarplayer1953 (Psalm 83:1-8 is on the horizon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953

But God did not do any such manipulation with Mary: she was actually pregnant with her own baby. You have just invented something not in the gospel. If God did not want Mary to play the role she played, He could have incarnated Jesus the way He made Adam from essentially nothing.

Further, Mary appears several times throughout the gospels, at pivotal points of Jesus’s ministry; this is not consistent with your “vessel” theory.


18 posted on 09/04/2008 8:08:14 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: annalex
If you read the NT it says that

Matthew 00020 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Luke 00024 1:24 And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months, saying,

If you will notice it says that the Holy Spirit conceived when speaking of Jesus but when speaking of John the word say that Elisabeth conceived.

As far as the pivotal time this is what Jesus had to say about her meddling,

2:2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. 00054 2:3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. 00055 2:4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. 00056 2:5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.

If you will notice He did not even caller Mother but WOMAN.

19 posted on 09/04/2008 8:24:07 PM PDT by guitarplayer1953 (Psalm 83:1-8 is on the horizon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953
Naturally, St. Joseph had to be explained who the father is but not the fact that Mary conceived. In Luke, the angel says plainly "thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son".

The John 5:2:4 is a mistranslation the way you quote it.

And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come. (Douay)

Legei aute o Iesous ti emoi kai soi gynai oupo ekei e ora mou (Greek Byzantine/Majority)

Jesus saith to her, `What -- to me and to thee, woman? not yet is mine hour come.' (Young's Literal Translation)

Unbound Bible (run your own search)

"Woman" may sound condescending to a modern ear, but the implication here is to remind us of the "woman" of Genesis 3:15.

Anyway, what makes you think that no one in 4c thought any of that?

20 posted on 09/04/2008 8:56:04 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: annalex
That is your interpretation. Or should I say your misinterpretation.

The woman in Gen is not speaking of Mary.And as far as the bible says that Joseph was a just man, and many believe that he died when Jesus was young so it is a streach that he was a saint.

What is a 4c is that anything like the 4h?

21 posted on 09/04/2008 9:31:30 PM PDT by guitarplayer1953 (Psalm 83:1-8 is on the horizon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Kolokotronis
neither is noticing the redemptive role of Mary -- to whom the Orthodox, after all, pray "Theotokos, save us", -- heretical

Based on †Paul's “I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means and in any way, save them.” (1 Cor 9:22).

Apparently †Paul believed he was endowed with this power as God's "deputy," a co-worker of God.

We are also told that we are our own co-redeemers, as well as of others who hear us (1 Tim 4:16).

This takes away the unique role ascribed by the Latin Church to Mary's exclusive co-redemptive role.

The word pray also doesn't always mean "taking to God." That is somewhat of a Protestant innovation. The word used to mean "ask." It could be anyone. You can even say "pray tell" and no one thbinks you are praying to God. The same way the word kyrios was used: a title that applies to humans as well as to God.

The prayer in the Orthodox Church I am familiar with is the one that says "Though the prayers of the Theotokos, O Savior, save us." [Feast of Transfiguration of Our Lord God Jesus Christ, August 6th] That makes sense to me. Theotokos save us doesn't.

Only God saves. It is his prerogative. Excluding Christ, no human is divine, period.

22 posted on 09/04/2008 10:01:23 PM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953

The woman in Genesis is promised that her seed will crush the serpent. That is Mary.

The rest of your questions I don’t understand, will you rephrase?


23 posted on 09/04/2008 11:43:56 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Kolokotronis
But the Church does not teach a unique co-redemptive role. Mark Miravalle likewise speaks of us all being participants in the redemptive work of Christ. Of course, Mary is the only one who gave birth to Him, and of course only Christ is divine.

A Google on "Theotokos, Save Us" yields dozens of entries.

Some modern Orthodox Christians don't like the words "Most Holy Theotokos, Save Us." They would prefer the words "intercede for us," reminding us that the exclamation "Save Us" is confusing to non-Orthodox. The veneration of Mary is not for the non-Orthodox. Once people have been fully converted to Christ, the love of the Panagia follows naturally.

Most Holy Theotokos, Save Us


24 posted on 09/04/2008 11:50:55 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: annalex

That was written rather hastily. Yes the woman in Gen is Mary but the comment from Jesus at the marriage about using the word woman did not refer back to the Gen woman.


25 posted on 09/05/2008 1:55:59 AM PDT by guitarplayer1953 (Psalm 83:1-8 is on the horizon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953

This is a caucus thread. Are you Catholic/Orthodox?


26 posted on 09/05/2008 3:44:51 AM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: annalex; kosta50

“Some modern Orthodox Christians don’t like the words “Most Holy Theotokos, Save Us.” They would prefer the words “intercede for us,” reminding us that the exclamation “Save Us” is confusing to non-Orthodox. The veneration of Mary is not for the non-Orthodox. Once people have been fully converted to Christ, the love of the Panagia follows naturally.”

Yup.


27 posted on 09/05/2008 4:52:39 AM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953
did not refer back to the Gen woman.

Right, -- we both interpret. You read "woman" and think "condescension", and I read "woman" and think "propoevangelion". Now, who reads scripture and who injects his modern outlook?

Note that if Mary "meddled" then she succeeded in her "meddling" as Christ did start His ministry of miracles and conversion at Cana. She also had a strange way of "meddling" by saying "they have no wine" and "do what He tells you". The notion that Jesus was irritated at His mother doesn't fit the context, let alone anything else.

28 posted on 09/05/2008 8:00:53 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne; guitarplayer1953

I invited all to come with questions, see #2. The caucus designation permits that. My ping list is for non-Catholics, and is unlikely to have any Orthodox.

You know me: I’d have it open if the subject were not the person of the Blessed Mother.


29 posted on 09/05/2008 8:05:23 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Here in Georgia (USofA), Conyers, between 1990 and 1998, an apparition of Mary was allegedly seen by the owner of the property there. Coming from an Assemblies of God background, and knowing how easy it is for people to blindly believe without "VETTING" I didn't go visit. A friend did and brought back a photo. In the photo there is a mist in a leafless tree (it was winterish) that greatly resembled a human female form dressed in a robe with her hands down to her side. The mist ONLY showed in the photo and did not show when looked at by my friend. She said she "felt this stronge urge to photograph that one tree," so she did. And SHE was amazed at the photo.

For the Church to approve an apparition is a long process and someone who tries to make money (for parking, food and drink, etc) from an alleged apparition, is a red flag for me. Some people did look at the sun in Conyers and see the sun dance. I am not one for staring at the sun, either, though I do encourage looking at the Son on the Cross.

I prefer the Teresa of Avila way . . . Interior Castles . . . myself. And no publicity. If you're supposed to publicize, God will take care of it and someone else will be given that task. True saints are humble.

Now I shall read the article.

30 posted on 09/05/2008 9:40:55 AM PDT by HighlyOpinionated (The Number of the Beast:"six hundred threescore six." Barack Hussein Obama can translate:"Lucifer.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: HighlyOpinionated
I am not one for staring at the sun, either, though I do encourage looking at the Son on the Cross.

:-)

I totally concur with your commentary. The world, unfortunately, is filled with doubting Thomases who seek proof and profiteers who know how to capitalize on their weaknesses.

31 posted on 09/05/2008 9:57:44 AM PDT by NYer ("Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ." - St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: annalex; guitarplayer1953

propoevangelion -> protoevangelion, verse 15 of Gen. 3.


32 posted on 09/05/2008 9:59:18 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953; annalex
Therefore Mary is but a vessel that carried the man God. It would be the same if you and your wife could not have children and you took an egg from her and a seed from you and placed it in a third person to carry the baby, that person gave birth to you and your wife’s egg and seed. The same is with Mary she was only a vessel.

In Luke 1:31,34, the angel tells Mary that you "will" conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, "How shall this be?" Mary's response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

33 posted on 09/05/2008 10:07:39 AM PDT by NYer ("Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ." - St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Kolokotronis
But the Church does not teach a unique co-redemptive role

Technically, no, but there are may in the Western Church who would like to make it a dogma that Mary is the Co-Redemptrix, and no one else. Certainly the Western Church is not opposed to Catholics holding such beliefs.

Some modern Orthodox Christians don't like the words "Most Holy Theotokos, Save Us."

It's not a matter of "liking" or "disliking," but a matter of theological concern that a human being is being elevated to a demi-god.

"Once people have been fully converted to Christ, the love of the Panagia follows naturally."

Goes without saying.

34 posted on 09/05/2008 10:22:25 AM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953; annalex
Therefore Mary is but a vessel that carried the man God.

Or to use the more common phrase, she was His mother.

So, do you send your mother a "Vessel Card" on Mother's Day?

35 posted on 09/05/2008 10:25:14 AM PDT by FormerLib (Sacrificing our land and our blood cannot buy protection from jihad.-Bishop Artemije of Kosovo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NYer; guitarplayer1953

Guitarplayer was not arguing that point, but yes, good to remind people of this scriptural evidence for her perpetual virginity.


36 posted on 09/05/2008 2:47:16 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Kolokotronis
who would like to make it a dogma that Mary is the Co-Redemptrix, and no one else

The "no one else" part I dispute. Here we have a proponent of such dogma and he clearly writes that the co-redemptive status of Mary is an icon of the co-redemptive Church and so all of us. See the passage I highlighted a few posts ago. Now, you would not dispute that there are things about Mary that are unique, but the proposed dogma is designed to underscore rather than deny our own participation in the redemptive work of Christ.

a matter of theological concern that a human being is being elevated to a demi-god

My point with "Theotokos save us" is not that there is no concern like that, but that the Orthodox Church has this devotion, and I am sure millions of the Orthodox repeat the prayer understanding it correctly, not as demi-godship of Mary but as her unique participation in the economy of salvation. But that Orthodox prayer is diagrammatically not that Mary is a co-Redemptrix, but the she is, gasp, Redemptrix. Just like I do not make it my business to presume that the Orthodox praying that are idolaters, please do not make it your business to presume that the Catohlics, who pray less strident a prayer with the "co-" attached, are.

37 posted on 09/05/2008 2:58:55 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: NYer
How do you get a vow of life long virginity from this statement?

She like all other has sinned and was a sinner

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean [thing], and all our righteousnesses [are] as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

38 posted on 09/05/2008 3:14:34 PM PDT by guitarplayer1953 (Psalm 83:1-8 is on the horizon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne

I am part of the universal church of Jesus.


39 posted on 09/05/2008 3:31:25 PM PDT by guitarplayer1953 (Psalm 83:1-8 is on the horizon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953; NYer
What follows from Luke 1:31,34 is simply a determination not to consummate the marriage with Joseph. The entirety of the story is known from tradition, and of course Luke 1 does not spell it out. See The Protoevangelium of James

Romans 3:23 does not apply to Mary; if it did she would be not merely a sinner but also someone who is not seeking God, whose "mouth is is full of cursing and bitterness" and whose "feet are quick to shed blood" (vv 11-15). What you cite are generalized statements of human sinfullness.

40 posted on 09/05/2008 4:12:41 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953
She like all other has sinned and was a sinner

The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary. The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

41 posted on 09/05/2008 4:31:05 PM PDT by NYer ("Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ." - St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Then the bible is a wrong on all have sinned?

Does the full of grace mean that she did not need salvation?

42 posted on 09/05/2008 4:33:26 PM PDT by guitarplayer1953 (Psalm 83:1-8 is on the horizon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: annalex
I read your little story who made it up?

so the bible is a liar? Isa and Paul are liars? It's says that all not some but all and Isa says that we are not righteous no not one.

43 posted on 09/05/2008 4:40:14 PM PDT by guitarplayer1953 (Psalm 83:1-8 is on the horizon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953

The infancy gospel is usually attributed to St. James, but may be of later origin. What makes you think it is made up?

The Bible is inspired inerrant scripture. For that reason it is important to read it carefully and understand it in context. If you do, you will agree that the context of Romans 3 makes it clear it is a generalization and not a prooftext of Mary’s sinfullness. Likewise with Isaiah, — the Bible makes many references to righteous people. Noah, for example, is described as “perfect in every way”.


44 posted on 09/05/2008 5:02:30 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953; annalex
Then the bible is a wrong on all have sinned?

"All have sinned " only means that all are subject to original sin. Mary was spared from original sin by God, not herself. The popular analogy is God let us fall in the mud puddle, and cleaned us up afterward through baptism. In Mary's case, God did not let her enter the mud puddle. Consider, too, Rom. 3:23 - "all have sinned" also refers only to those able to commit sin. This is not everyone. For example, infants, the retarded, and the senile cannot sin. In Rom. 3:23, finally, "all have sinned," but Jesus must be an exception to this rule. This means that Mary can be an exception as well. Note that the Greek word for all is "pantes."

Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation.

Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been "saved" from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain.

I am off line until morning. Look forward to our discussion.

45 posted on 09/05/2008 5:10:00 PM PDT by NYer ("Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ." - St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Your analogy is wrong Isa and Romans says the all have sinned all are guilty none are righteous. You have to make her sinless in order to maker the queen of Heaven the co Redeemer the Mother of God

To which you are wrong on all three accounts.

46 posted on 09/05/2008 5:22:53 PM PDT by guitarplayer1953 (Psalm 83:1-8 is on the horizon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: annalex
The topic of co-redemptive role of Blessed Virgin Mary tends to be an occasion of sin for many opposed to the doctrine. For that reason, this is a caucus thread ...

Wise and gracious of you to make this clear up front. Otherwise, people might start making comparisons to the Angel Moroni ...

47 posted on 09/05/2008 5:25:51 PM PDT by RJR_fan (Winners and lovers shape the future. Whiners and losers TRY TO PREDICT IT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953; NYer
Isa and Romans says the all have sinned all are guilty none are righteous

Please respond to the suggestion, also from Romans 3, that no one seeks God and all are blaspheming murderers. Selective prooftexting is disrespect for the Holy Scripture; avoid it.

48 posted on 09/05/2008 7:11:24 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: annalex

all right we are all sinners without the Holy Spirit to bring convictions and repentance we would all go to hell. Is that plain enough?


49 posted on 09/05/2008 7:35:30 PM PDT by guitarplayer1953 (Psalm 83:1-8 is on the horizon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953

Does Romans 3 mean that Mary is also a blaspheming murderer not seeking God? You are getting tiresome.


50 posted on 09/05/2008 7:39:08 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson