Are You More Blessed Than the Virgin Mary?

Desiring God ^ | 12/15/2010 | Jonathan Parnell

[maryz]

I forgot to say that Old English -- like Greek (I believe) -- had a genitive absolute (today called "nominative absolute" IIRC), as opposed to the Latin ablative absolute. For those who forget, the absolute construction is a structure like "The hour being late, we left" -- the absolute construction in italics.

[maryz]

Another addition — in OE, the genitive could be used adverbially. This survives in the expression (old-fashioned, but still current in the early 20th century) “must needs.”

[Mad Dawg]

Jvette: I think you have your answer. Some schools of thought on the other side have the unassailability of the lunatic. The clue is that they do not counter what they think is error by reason but with invective.

[Cvengr]

Thanks, informative post.

[Mad Dawg]

Fascinating side-bar, gang.

Yeah Greek has a genitive absolute. One of the first things I learned studying Greek was that I like having an ablative case.

[maryz]

Fascinating side-bar, gang.

And didja notice how unfailingly courteous we were? ;-)

[Mad Dawg]

Such an interesting post!

What’s “ECF”?

Proverbs 9:2 suggests that adding stuff to wine was a practice common enough not to need explaining. So my alleged point is that any “interpretation” is what I call a “Back-formation.” That is the practice existed for one reason, perhaps practical or simply aesthetic, and then somebody comes up with a “meaning.”

IMHO a PROBABLE example of the same thing is the interpretation of five crosses on an altar (one at each corner and one in the middle) as the 5 wounds of Christ follows from the aesthetics of the quincunx — the pattern of the five dots on a die. First, in my guess, came the design for design’s sake. THEN the association ...

A lot of vestments and their “meaning” follow the same trail. The real MEANING of the chasuble is (a)It’s cold out there; (b) I can afford a big cloak; (c) these are my party clothes!

THEN other meanings get added.

In 1971 I was an “altar boy” at the Episcopal Cathedral in Sodom on the Bay (back before SF was as blatant and notorious as it is now.) At the beginning of the “liturgy of the Table” while some of us were lighting candles, others were helping the priest put a remote microphone on. Back in those days, when fire was still an innovation, the remote mic was about as big as a small cigar. And I used to joke that “after the next war” when all such things had disappeared, in the Cathedral in San Francisco a vaguely cylindrical object, maybe containing scripture texts, as tefillin do, would be hung around the priest’s neck before the celebration, and reams of learned discourses would be written about the origin of this local custom.

But, to be momentarily serious, I think this line of thought leads to this conclusion: if anyone wants to meditate on Jesus and the Woman at the Well during the preparation of the ‘gifts’, that’s a beautiful thing. The association with the hypostatic union is not mandatory (for the laity) or exclusive.

BTW - the whole issue of what we call “the real presence” is all messed up because people who do not a study philosophy think they have none, but they’re wrong; they actually have one of which they are unaware. So in all these donnybrooks you will see “literally”,”physically”, “substantially”, and “really” thrown around with abandon. Some seem to think they are synonyms, so they blithely assert that when we feelthy papists say “Real presence” that is automatically the same in meaning as “literal” or “physical” presence. But that is not at all clear.

I just KNOW you are on the edge of your chair waiting for this stream of verbiage .....

[1000 silverlings]

*Seriously though, I would say that following the line of Romanist typology it most likely represents Protestants because Protestants make them puke*

this is why I like you: strong meat

[Dr. Eckleburg]

THE-CONSCIENCE: *Seriously though, I would say that following the line of Romanist typology it most likely represents Protestants because Protestants make them puke*

1000SILVERLINGS: this is why I like you: strong meat

lol. And that's why it's an honor to post alongside Christians like you guys who know their Bible and believe it to the saving of your souls and the glory of God alone.

Your righteous fellowship is a gift that keeps on giving. 8~)

[1000 silverlings]

thanks Doc, and the feeling is mutual

[Cronos]

D00d, they have no trouble telling us what we believe. Why should they be any more reasonable about Lutherans?

You're right -- BElt, xone, xzins, congratulations -- first RN's post tries to say "no, THIS is what you believe in", now metmom's post clubs you guys in the "blood drinkers" club.

As soon as the followers of Calvin attack you with these statements, you know that you're doing well as a follower of Christ. God bless the LCMS

[Cronos]

With Pope Benedict's emphasis on strict orthodoxy and discipline, you find a reinvigorated Church -- as I've travelled around the US, Europe and Asia I see that so apparently in every parish where there is so much lay participation, where there are incredible amounts of youth participation and where many read the Bible at least once a week and as a consequence grow in the faith.

In India for example, in the 80s and 90s many of the groups like rn's or met's tried their tactics converting little old ladies whose kids had emigrated abroad. However, their infighting, the group's greed for money and land and the plain wacked out doctrine had a fall-back. Last year when I traveled to Bombay for instance, these groups are practically non-existent, their only members elderly spinsters who are completely brainwashed. It's strange because they loomed so big the last time I went in the 90s but now, like chaff, they have disappeared

The young Catholics are far better versed in the Bible than their elders and they KNOW the fallacies in the cult's arguments, they KNOW the standard tactics used by the cults to draw people in (as I see repeated in posts by RN and Met), and they are strong in their Christian faith to resist these cults. The groups attacking The Church have faded away like weeds growing on rock, since they have no roots.

The good thing is that like viruses attacking, these groups such as Rn's and Met's etc. have actually strengthened the Church. I can see it even in these posts where more and more Catholics are getting deeper into their Faith and learning how silly are the "alternatives" (from weirdness like denying the Creed to denying blessings for apostles to others), I can see it in more non-Catholics wandering into these threads, wondering why there is so much angst against The Church, learning the real truth of the Church and moving to start the RCIA (and thanking us Catholics who point out the Catechism and what The Church ACTUALLY believes and refuting false statements) -- by the actions of your groups, these have strengthened Christ's Church, the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church

[Cronos]

Jesus did not eat His own body and blood at the Last Supper. It would have made Him unclean and broken the Law

Sacramental Union is seen as similar to the personal union in the analogue of the uniting of the two perfect natures in the person of Jesus Christ in which both natures remain distinct: the integrity of the bread and wine remain though united with the body and the blood of Christ.

In the sacramental union the consecrated bread of the Eucharist is united with the body of Christ and the consecrated wine of the Eucharist is united with the blood of Christ by virtue of Christ's original institution with the result that anyone eating and drinking these "elements"—the consecrated bread and wine—really eat and drink the physical body and blood of Christ as well. Those eating and drinking in the Eucharist really eat and drink the body and blood of Christ

do you, metmom think this is wrong?

[Cronos]

To quote a far more learned Freeper than me

The Supper of the Lord, by the inerrant testimony of the Lord and His apostles, consists both of that which is seen and that which is unseen, of that which is temporal and that which is eternal, of that which is of the creation and that which is of the Creator. It is something that by its very description and definition defies human logic and explanation. Nevertheless what Jesus says of it is to be believed. There is peril in calling Him a liar. Better than that is to say, “I’m not sure and I don’t understand, but I believe my Lord, who never lies to me or to anyone.”

-- we refute your post's allegation of vampiric glee.

[Mad Dawg]

It’s like standing at 6:00 o’clock from where they are and watching an artillery barrage — two artillery barrages, one going to 3:00 o’clock and the other to 9:00 o’clock.

[Cronos]

Met: Jesus did not eat His own body and blood at the Last Supper. It would have made Him unclean and broken the Law

See my post above on Sacramental union.

To quote a far more learned Freeper than me

The Supper of the Lord, by the inerrant testimony of the Lord and His apostles, consists both of that which is seen and that which is unseen, of that which is temporal and that which is eternal, of that which is of the creation and that which is of the Creator. It is something that by its very description and definition defies human logic and explanation. Nevertheless what Jesus says of it is to be believed. There is peril in calling Him a liar. Better than that is to say, “I’m not sure and I don’t understand, but I believe my Lord, who never lies to me or to anyone.”

-- we refute your post's allegation of vampiric glee. For truly the Cross and the Eucharist are stumbling blocks preventing many from coming to Christ

In the Eucharist Christ is present and enters in the bread and wine. The two clearest expressions of the Real Presence in Scripture is in 1 Corinthians 10:14-17 and John 6:22-69.

In orthodoxy on this teaching of the True Presence in the Eucharist we find commonality between orthodox, catholics, orientals, Lutherans and Anglicans and Assyrians

The first announcement of the Eucharist divided the disciples, just as the announcement of the Passion scandalized them: "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" The Eucharist and the Cross are stumbling blocks. It is the same mystery and it never ceases to be an occasion of division. "Will you also go away?": the Lord's question echoes through the ages, as a loving invitation to discover that only he has "the words of eternal life" and that to receive in faith the gift of his Eucharist is to receive the Lord himself.

By your posts' attacks you attack basic Christian doctrine expressed through the ages.

[Cronos]

Jehovah's Witnesses say that Jesus' commands to eat his flesh and drink his blood in John 6 could not be literal because Jesus would be advocating something against God's law by commanding us to eat blood.

[Cronos]

You mean the truth that your group believes that St. Thomas was not blessed?

That is true, correct? Yes or no?

[Cronos]

Ouch, I forgot about gentives of motion to and from.

however, it does make sense.

[Cronos]

Let's revist what ~you said

He saw, then believed. Doesn't take anything but having one's eyes opened. Jesus doesn't say he was blessed at all!

so the dogma thatyour group believes is

1. St. Thomas was not blessed
2. All the Apostles who did see and did believe were not blessed.

No wonder cults such as yours -- which was founded by man and has man-made, not God's doctrines -- flounder so soon.

Your group seems to make up it's own interpretations based on misinterpretations, excerpts and outright pastoral lies such as "oh.... the Apostles and all who saw Jesus shouldn't be called blessed"

Bah -- man-made cults like yours with their own misinterpretations of the Bible. If you check your cult's history, it was founded by some (wo)man in the past twenty years, it has had at least one split in the past decade, and that or the original split which formed your group was due to embezzlement of funds or accusing the other group of "satanic gospel" or both.

Checking further, your cult will believe in Millerism, will doubt the Trinity and will doubt if through Christ all was made -- standard steps in the downward travel of most cults

But, don't worry, in a few years your cult will be dead because it has no roots in Christ, but is a man-made group.

no wonder the aim of such cults as yours is control, domination and attack.