Posted on 04/13/2012 4:35:34 PM PDT by stpio
Maybe this is the "May 31st" that the 5th Marian Dogma will be proclaimed? We'll see. Pray for the Holy Father.
Remember, co-...means with.
http://www.thewarningsecondcoming.com/
~ ~ ~
message to Maria of Divine Mercy (Ireland))
Virgin Mary: The time for me to crush the serpent is drawing nearer
Friday, April 13th, 2012 @ 05:57 pm
I am your beloved Mother, Queen of the Earth. I am the Immaculate Conception, the Virgin Mary, Mother of Jesus who came in the flesh.
My child, the time for the triumph of My Immaculate Heart is close.
The time for me to crush the serpent is drawing nearer. But until the day when Satan and his demons are cast into the wilderness, much confusion will erupt on earth.
For believers in my Son, it will be a time of torment. They will be pulled into two different directions by the Catholic Church.
One half will believe, out of duty, the need to follow the False Prophet, the Pope who will follow Pope Benedict XVI
He, the beast, is dressed like a lamb but is not from my Father, God the Most High, and will fool poor souls including priests, bishops and cardinals.
Many will follow him and believe him to be sent by God to rule over His Church on earth.
Sadly, many souls will follow his teachings which will be insulting to My Father.
Others, filled with the Holy Spirit and given the graces of discernment because of their humble souls, will know instantly, that an imposter sits in the Church in Rome.
The new FALSE pope is already scheming, even before he ascends to the throne of the Seat of Peter, to denounce the teachings of my Son. Then he will denounce me, the Blessed Mother of God, and ridicule my role as Co-Redemptrix.
My child, your role is going to become even harder than before. For many of my children are very confused. The insults you face every day, the torments you endure on behalf of my Son, will increase.
Never be afraid to tell the world [u]the truth[/u] my child.
You are being made stronger as a result of the physical and mental suffering you accept on behalf of my Son in order to save souls.
Every effort, especially by one division in the Catholic Church, will be made to dismiss my messages given to you.
Your obedience and loyalty to me and my beloved Son will be tested as never before. This may lead you to pull away but, should this happen, it will not last long.
Pray, my child, for all of God’s children who, through no fault of their own, are being pulled into the final battle for souls.
All of this must come to pass for it is contained in my Father’s Book.
All the angels in Heaven protect you, my child, in this somewhat lonely mission.
Always remember how important prayer is.
Pray, pray, pray for without prayer, especially the recital of my Holy Rosary, Satan can pull you away from the Holy Word of my Precious Son.
Remember also the importance of fasting for it keeps the deceiver at bay.
Without regular prayer, my children, will find it hard to remain close to my Son.
Never fear the future children for once you remain close to my Son you will be protected
And given the necessary graces to prepare your souls and those of your families for the New Era of Peace foretold so long ago.
Your beloved Mother
Queen of the Earth
Mother of Salvation
“Putting aside the thread topic about some “prophet” prognosticating about the demise of half of the Roman Catholic Church “faithful” in the maybe near future, do you at least agree with Daniel’s point that the thread originator does NOT have the official sanctions to buttress his interpretation of the identity of the “woman” in Revelation 12? That really WAS Daniel’s main point, you know.”
~ ~ ~
God knows what is going to happen, in His love He’s trying to tell you in prophecy through the words of Mary. Some Catholics will reject the 5th Marian Dogma when it is proclaimed, what do you imagine Protestants will do? You can change, it’s a sign of maturity to change when you discover something new about a subject that you previously rejected.
A child could identify the “woman” it’s not hard. Rev 12:13 ....he persecuted the woman, who brought forth the man child:
St. Ephrem’s quote, Mary is the “woman” in Genesis 3:15. He said this in the 4th century and the protest to reject Mary is the “woman” in Gen 3:15 came in the 16th century.
And in a hymn of St. Ephrem the Syrian (d. 373) we find, “The Lord hath spoken it: Satan is cast out of heaven. And Mary has trodden on him who struck at the heel of Eve. And blessed be He, who by His birth has destroyed the foe!” (17) Elsewhere, St. Ephrem explains that “Because the serpent had struck Eve with his claw, the foot of Mary bruised him”
Catechism of the Catholic Church
410 After his fall, man was not abandoned by God. On the contrary, God calls him and in a mysterious way heralds the coming victory over evil and his restoration from his fall.304 This passage in Genesis is called the
Protoevangelium (”first gospel”): the first announcement of the Messiah and Redeemer, OF A BATTLE BETWEEN THE SERPENT AND THE WOMAN, and of the final victory of a descendant of hers.
411 The Christian tradition sees in this passage an announcement of the “New Adam” who, because he “became obedient unto death, even death on a cross”, makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience, of Adam.305 FURTHERMORE, MANY FATHERS AND DOCTORS OF THE CHURCH HAVE SEEN THE WOMAN ANNOUNCED IN THE PROTOEVANGEIUM AS MARY, THE
MOTHER OF CHRIST, the “new Eve”. Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ’s victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.306
304 Cf. Gen 3:9,15.
305 Cf. 1 Cor 15:21-22,45; Phil 2:8; Rom 5:19-20
306 Cf. Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus: DS 2803; Council of Trent: DS 1573.
This is why no will discuss Revelation 12:13 or reply to why Our Lord keeps addressing Mary as the “woman.”
“Jesus does not address His mother as ‘the’ “woman”. Rather, as “woman” as he more frequently addresses more women as He does throughout His ministry.”
~ ~ ~
OLD REGGIE,
First, I didn’t put THE in quotes, I put woman in quotes.
I have to repeat it again, you don’t have to give quotes
of where Our Lord called someone else “woman.” The OP
and the discussion is about when Our Lord addressed His
mother as “woman.”
No where in Scripture does a son call his mother “woman.”
Our Lord is teaching you, from the Old Covenant, who
the “woman” is...
Protestants reject Mary, so they object and say no.
It was the reformers (revolters) who did this, you don’t
have to. Satan did the same, it’s been revealed.
My interest is in pointing out your selected use of "facts" and the liberties taken to buttress your far from unanimous interpretation.
For example:
CCC
411 The Christian tradition sees in this passage an announcement of the “New Adam” who, because he “became obedient unto death, even death on a cross”, makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience, of Adam.305 FURTHERMORE, MANY FATHERS AND DOCTORS OF THE CHURCH HAVE SEEN THE WOMAN ANNOUNCED IN THE PROTOEVANGEIUM AS MARY, THE MOTHER OF CHRIST, the “new Eve”. Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ’s victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.306
"...FURTHERMORE, MANY FATHERS AND DOCTORS OF THE CHURCH HAVE SEEN THE WOMAN ANNOUNCED IN THE PROTOEVANGEIUM AS MARY, THE MOTHER OF CHRIST..."
This is proof of nothing but a feeble attempt on your part to declare your private interpretation as fact or even official teaching of the Catholic Church.
...My interest is in pointing out your selected use of “facts” and the liberties taken to buttress your far from unanimous interpretation.
For example:
CCC
411 The Christian tradition sees in this passage an announcement of the “New Adam” who, because he “became obedient unto death, even death on a cross”, makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience, of Adam.305 FURTHERMORE, MANY FATHERS AND DOCTORS OF THE CHURCH HAVE SEEN THE WOMAN ANNOUNCED IN THE PROTOEVANGEIUM AS MARY, THE MOTHER OF CHRIST, the “new Eve”. Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ’s victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.306
“...FURTHERMORE, MANY FATHERS AND DOCTORS OF THE CHURCH HAVE SEEN THE WOMAN ANNOUNCED IN THE PROTOEVANGEIUM AS MARY, THE MOTHER OF CHRIST...”
This is proof of nothing but a feeble attempt on your part to declare your private interpretation as fact or even official teaching of the Catholic Church.
~ ~ ~
What?? It’s in CAPS in the Catechism.
REGGIE, just remember the prophecy and our discussion when the 5th Marian dogma is proclaimed and especially, when the Great Warning happens. Mary is a major part of God’s redemptive plan. God wants everyone to recognize the fact. Lucifer said no to Mary, don’t you. Change instead.
Sadly, Mary is a big block for our brothers and sisters.
One reason... She can’t appear to Protestants, only if God allows by an exception made because you all profess heresy. She will after the Great Warning.
Protestants do not recognize the authority of the Church
on anything but when they are shown the Truth in their authority, their “Bible Alone” with Our Lord’s words in the Gospel and prefigured in the Old Testament they protest by asking, show me where your Church says this...
I give proof, a 4th century saint, St. Ephrem and Church teaching, that’s what the Catechism is for and now you reject it.
REGGIE, just remember the prophecy and our discussion when the 5th Marian dogma is proclaimed and especially, when the Great Warning happens. Mary is a major part of God’s redemptive plan. God wants everyone to recognize the fact. Lucifer said no to Mary, don’t you. Change instead.
Enjoy your stay in the MARIAN CHURCH
BTW, I am not Protestant.
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." - Hamlet Act 3, scene 2
This is why no will discuss Revelation 12:13 or reply to why Our Lord keeps addressing Mary as the “woman.”
“Jesus does not address His mother as ‘the’ “woman”. Rather, as “woman” as he more frequently addresses more women as He does throughout His ministry.”
~ ~ ~
OLD REGGIE,
First, I didn’t put THE in quotes, I put woman in quotes.
I have to repeat it again, you don’t have to give quotes
of where Our Lord called someone else “woman.” The OP
and the discussion is about when Our Lord addressed His
mother as “woman.”
No where in Scripture does a son call his mother “woman.”
Our Lord is teaching you, from the Old Covenant, who
the “woman” is...
Protestants reject Mary, so they object and say no.
It was the reformers (revolters) who did this, you don’t
have to. Satan did the same, it’s been revealed.
____________________
Protest and then run away, you never replied to the above because you can’t.
I am going with “many” of the Church Fathers and the saints, they were closer to Christ. You choose to reject Mary and follow adulterous King James and his fellas, his translators.
Again, the devil could not handle God would ask Mary,
a mere human to help in mankind’s redemption.
You’re doing the same. Don’t listen any longer to heretics. You didn’t come with their heresies and denials.
You have NO idea what I do or do not esteem as my authority. You are NOT a mind reader so please stop pretending to be. For the record, the Word of God is THE authority given BY God for just that reason. The Bible is not some kind of secret handshake, coded and nebulous document but the divinely inspired, God-breathed truth recorded for us in a form that could be preserved and was preserved even to our day. The Roman Catholic Church, had they really been given that task, would have made sure it was stored away in a secret vault in the Vatican somewhere and NO ONE would have the blessing of reading it for themselves with God the Holy Spirit illuminating the truths therein to their hearts. The Catholic Church had much to lose with the common man having access to Scriptures and that is why they forbid its reading until fairly recently. They even went so far as to pursue the murder of those who had copies or who endeavored to translate it into the languages of the people (i.e., John Wycliffe, Jan Hus, Tyndale and others). I obey Holy Scripture because it is from God and not men who claim to be equal in authority to it.
You continue to sidestep the point of these comments. Will you admit that YOUR interpretation of the woman in Genesis 3:15 and Revelation 12 is your own personal belief and that you do not have the backing of the authority YOU claim? The Roman Catholic magesterium is certainly NOT my authority, but I am not the one claiming it is.
St. Jerome got it WRONG? Okay, what part of Scripture is correct? King James and his fellas corrected Jerome twelve centuries later, I don’t think so.
Yes, Jerome was wrong in this part and we have the Hebrew version with which to KNOW that. The Vulgate, if you are familiar, is "a late 4th-century Latin translation of the Bible. It was largely the work of St. Jerome, who was commissioned by Pope Damasus I in 382 to make a revision of the old Latin translations. By the 13th century this revision had come to be called the versio vulgata, that is, the "commonly used translation",[1] and ultimately it became the definitive and officially promulgated Latin version of the Bible in the Roman Catholic Church. Its widespread adoption led to the eclipse of earlier Latin translations, which are collectively referred to as the Vetus Latina." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate. It was NOT, contrary to mistaken belief, entirely the work of Jerome. From the same source above, these are additional facts about the Vulgate:
The Latin Biblical texts in use before the Latin Vulgate are usually referred to collectively as the Vetus Latina, or "Old Latin Bible", or occasionally the "Old Latin Vulgate". (Here "Old Latin" means that they are older than the Vulgate and written in Latin, not that they are written in Old Latin. Likewise the Latin Vulgate was so named because it was the Latin counterpart to the Greek Vulgate; it was not written in Vulgar Latin.) The translations in the Vetus Latina had accumulated piecemeal over a century or more; they were not translated by a single person or institution, nor uniformly edited. The individual books varied in quality of translation and style, and different manuscripts witness wide variations in readings. Jerome, in his preface to the Vulgate gospels, commented that there were "as many [translations] as there are manuscripts". The Old Testament books of the Vetus Latina were translated from the Greek Septuagint, not from the Hebrew.
Over the course of the Middle Ages, the Vulgate had succumbed to the inevitable changes wrought by human error in the countless copies made of the text in monasteries across Europe. From its earliest days, readings from the Old Latin were introduced. Marginal notes were erroneously interpolated into the text. No one copy was the same as any other[dubious – discuss] as scribes added, removed, misspelled, or miscorrected verses in the Latin Bible.
Alcuin of York oversaw efforts to make an improved Vulgate, which he presented to Charlemagne in 801; although he concentrated mainly on correcting inconsistencies of grammar and orthography, many of which were in the original text. More scholarly attempts were made by Theodulphus, Bishop of Orléans (787?–821); Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury (1070–1089); Stephen Harding, Abbot of Cîteaux (1109–1134); and Deacon Nicolaus Maniacoria (about the beginning of the 13th century). The University of Paris, the Dominicans, and the Franciscans following Roger Bacon assembled lists of correctoria; approved readings where variants had been noted. Many of the readings that were recommended were later found to be interpolations, or survivals of the Old Latin text, since medieval correctors commonly sought to adjust the Vulgate text into consistency with bible quotations found in Early Church Fathers.
Though the advent of printing greatly reduced the potential of human error and increased the consistency and uniformity of the text, the earliest editions of the Vulgate merely reproduced the manuscripts that were readily available to the publishers. Of the hundreds of early editions, the most notable today is Mazarin edition published by Johann Gutenberg and Johann Fust in 1455, famous for its beauty and antiquity. In 1504 the first Vulgate with variant readings was published in Paris. One of the texts of the Complutensian Polyglot was an edition of the Vulgate made from ancient manuscripts and corrected to agree with the Greek.
Erasmus published an edition corrected to agree better with the Greek and Hebrew in 1516. Other corrected editions were published by Xanthus Pagninus in 1518, Cardinal Cajetan, Augustinus Steuchius in 1529, Abbot Isidorus Clarius (Venice, 1542), and others. In 1528, Robertus Stephanus published the first of a series of critical editions, which formed the basis of the later Sistine and Clementine editions. The critical edition of John Hentenius of Louvain followed in 1547.[33]
In 1550, Stephanus fled to Geneva where in 1555 he issued his final critical edition of the Vulgate, which was the first complete Bible with full chapter and verse divisions, and which became the standard Biblical reference text for late 16th century Reformed theology.
After the Reformation, when the Catholic Church strove to counter the attacks and refute the doctrines of Protestantism, the Vulgate was reaffirmed in the Council of Trent as the sole, authorized Latin text of the Bible. To fulfill this declaration, the council commissioned the pope to make a standard text of the Vulgate out of the countless editions produced during the Renaissance and manuscripts produced during the Middle Ages. The actual first manifestation of this authorized text did not appear until 1590. It was sponsored by Pope Sixtus V (1585–90) and known as the Sistine Vulgate. It was based on the edition of Robertus Stephanus corrected to agree with the Greek, but it was hurried into print and suffered from many printing errors.
The Clementine Vulgate of 1592 became the standard Bible text of the Roman Rite of the Roman Catholic Church until 1979, when the Nova Vulgata was promulgated.
The foundational text of most of the Nova Vulgata's Old Testament is the critical edition done by the monks of the Benedictine Abbey of St. Jerome under Pope St. Pius X.[44] The foundational text of the books of Tobit and Judith are from manuscripts of the Vetus Latina rather than the Vulgate. The New Testament was based on the 1969 edition of the Stuttgart Vulgate. All of these base texts were revised to accord with the modern critical editions in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.[51] There are also a number of changes where the modern scholars felt that Jerome had failed to grasp the meaning of the original languages, or had rendered it obscurely.
The Nova Vulgata has not been widely embraced by conservative Catholics, many of whom see it as being in some verses of the Old Testament a new translation rather than a revision of Jerome's work. Also, some of its readings sound unfamiliar to those who are accustomed to the Clementine.
In 2001, the Vatican released the instruction Liturgiam Authenticam, establishing the Nova Vulgata as a point of reference for all translations of the liturgy of the Roman rite into the vernacular from the original languages, "in order to maintain the tradition of interpretation that is proper to the Latin Liturgy".
Uh...shouldn’t that be, “I thinks”, Miss Chambers? ;o)
Affirmations of the Belief that Jesus Will Crush satan:
“the Son of God appeared that he might destroy the works of the devil” (1st John 3:8).
“Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil” (Hebrews 2:14).
“Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: ‘Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ. For the accuser of our brothers, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down. They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death’” (Revelation 12:10-11).
Justin Martyr wrote, “Christ is born of the Virgin, in order that the disobedience caused by the serpent might be destroyed.”
Pope-Saint Leo the Great wrote, “at the beginning of the world [God], foretold the remedy his love had prepared for the restoration of us mortals, giving notice to the serpent that the offspring of the woman would come and, by his power, crush its baneful head as it was raised to strike.”
The following Bibles also read he and his for Genesis 3:15:
The Septuagint
The Living Bible-Paraphrased
Genesis-Translated and Commentary by Robert Alter
The Holy Bible an American Translation
The Living Bible
Authorized King James Version
New King James Version
Revised Standard Version
New Revised Standard Version
The Answer-New Century Version
The Revised Berkeley Version in Modern English
New International Version
Holy Bible Contemporary English Version
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
The Book
Complete Jewish Bible
Robert Young’s Literal Translation
J.N. Darby Translation
American Standard Version
Hebrew Names Version
The alternative readings are as follows:
The Torah-The Five Books of Moses-A New Translation of the Holy Scripture According to the Traditional (Masoretic) Hebrew Text has “offspring” instead of “seed” and “they-their” instead of “he-his.”
The Bible in Living English has “issue” instead of “seed” and “it-its” instead of “he-his.”
New English Bible has “brood” instead of “seed” and “they-their” instead of “he-his.”
Good News Bible Today’s English Version has “offspring” instead of “seed” and “her offspring-their” instead of “he-his” the footnote on the word “their” states, “their; or his.”
Noah Webster Version has “it-his” instead of “he-his.”
Spending your time searching Catholic writing to disprove
what the Church teaches. It’s comical and kinda sad.
Some of your Catholic quotes show the “woman” is Mary. You’re so defiant.
NO!,says boatbums and other non-Catholic Christians here. The “woman” that gave birth to the man-child Jesus is a country not Mary. Sorry, you’re wrong.
Your list, the first, why in Heavens do you post the
Septuagint? Martin Luther rejected the Septuagint. He
wasn’t guided by God. The Septuagint was the Old Testament
Canon Our Lord and the Apostles most quoted from, it’s
the Alexandrian Canon.
I am going with John Salsa, remember what he said and since I can’t read Latin, I’ll trust the English version (the DR) of the first Bible, the Latin Vulgate. I trust St. Jerome. In a way, you do too, without him, you would not have a Bible. And thank you to Pope Damasus, he decided the Canon.
This is what St. Jerome translated from the original writings ~
I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
footnote to explain in the Douay-Rheims Bible:
[15] She shall crush: Ipsa, the woman; so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz., the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head. http://www.drbo.org/
God bless you boatbums,
“Israel did not bring forth Christ just because you say it. Israel is a nation not a “woman.”
I have referenced and placed this before you before (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2871838/posts?page=135#135), but it seems as if you have a one track mind, and suffer from ignorance of Scripture:
“Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. “ (Romans 9:4-5)
“The church did not become the “Israel of God”, this is the New Covenant.”
Those ar the words of the Holy Spirit, and I also referenced this to you:
“And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. “ (Galatians 6:16)
What is TRULY sad and not at all "comical" is your ignorance of Holy Scripture and your insistence that "you" are right and EVERY OTHER theologian is wrong. Do you have a degree in Theology? Have you studied what you believe and why you believe it or do you simply swallow whatever you're told and trust "they" are right? If Mary is really the one spoken of in Revelation 12, then you must address the "woman in this text is suffering from the stain of original sin. The Vatican approved NAB Bible’s footnotes state this fact, “Because of Eve’s sin, the woman gives birth in distress and pain (Gn 3, 16).” Also from another Vatican approved Bible we learned that “this is not the Blessed Virgin…By accommodation the Church applies this verse to the Blessed Virgin.” Therefore, a choice must be made; either Mary was Immaculately Conceived or she is the woman in revelation, she cannot be both." (http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/roman-catholic-maryology-mary-roman-catholicism-part-8-immaculately-conceived)
Since no one seems to be able to break through to you about this point, nor the truth that it is JESUS that defeats Satan, I'll not continue to try. You really should go back and read the comments from others on this thread and think about it a bit more. No one here has said Mary is unimportant. No one here has said Mary did not play a part in the salvation of humanity. No one here has disrespected Mary. What you have done is construct a theology based upon a mistranslation of ONE verse and then parlayed that into an interpretation of other verses all in the effort to glorify Mary and impart to her powers that nowhere in Scripture is she given them.
My main intent in adding my thoughts on this thread is to warn people against false prophets who tempt them to place their trust and hopes in someone who CANNOT save them. Only Jesus Christ is our Savior. ONLY faith in Him and his sacrifice for our sins grants us eternal life. If anyone is telling you differently, run away, it is THEY that are leading you astray.
You started this thread with a supposed "prophecy" from a woman who claims to be speaking for Mary, the mother of Jesus. In it, "she" says that half of the Catholics will follow a false prophet and, presumably, into their doom. Other than being a relater of this message, what are you really trying to do? If the prophet is correct, there's nothing you can do to stop it. If you somehow could, then the prophesy would be proven wrong, right?
One final thing...I do not hate Mary, nor do I hold any bad feelings towards her. She is not responsible for things others claim for her. As a matter of fact, I think she probably despises the way some people exalt her and place her at the center of their worship - and MANY do. I think she is just as grateful as all other believers that Jesus Christ came to save sinners. She even said, "My heart rejoices in God my savior.". I think it would be a good thing if people started placing their worship on who really deserves ALL glory and honor and praise - Jesus Christ. It is to Him that, one day, EVERY knee shall bow and EVERY tongue confess that HE is LORD to glory of God the Father. Mary will be the first among them!
It can’t be both ways, you go back and forth saying the Church has no authority and is wrong then search to show the Church agrees with you. Another poster was doing the same.
I kinda have an idea of who you “esteem” as your authority.
You said ~
The Bible, if it was hers, the Church “WOULD HAVE made sure it was stored away in secret”. This goes against the well known protest that is what she did? It’s history, hand printed, not until the invention of the printing press was
there much access, there were only a few Bibles.
~ ~ ~
“Yes, Jerome was wrong in this part and we have the Hebrew version with which to KNOW that.”...
~ ~ ~
Who is “we?” It’s been a long time, most of the original
writings are gone, so which “part” of the Hebrew do you all
still have and what of the rest of Scripture? Do you not have to trust St. Jerome for that? Yes you do.
You “cut and paste” is a long read, what is your point? Is it, the Vulgate is in error again? That’s silly, God wouldn’t allow His written Word to be wrong, that makes the oral passed down first from the Apostles wrong. No way.
You put Martin Luther’s errors in bold. Catholics follow the correct Old Testament Canon, the Alexandrian OT Canon, Protestants follow the Hebrew. It’s your loss.
St. Jerome wasn’t sure on some of the Pope Damasus’ choices
for the Canon but he obediently translated them and now
in modern history, the world sees Pope Damasus was correct,
ie: The Dead Sea Scrolls.
Change on two things and you’ll make it through the
Great Tribulation, all in God’s will. Believe in the Real Presence, the most Holy Eucharist and speak to Lord’s mother in prayer, she is your mother too. You will feel closer to her just like you do when you speak to Our Lord.
The Blessed Trinity has given Mary all graces to dispense,
she will help you if you ask. It makes Our Lord very happy. Mary has influence with Him. I give you example, He wasn’t ready but at His mother’s request, He did as she requested at the wedding of Cana. That’s a teaching moment
in the Gospel for us all.
Please stop claiming Catholic “authorities” agree with the Protestant rejection of Mary. You reject Catholic authority, sadly, the Pope and make yourself your own authority.
Mary is the first, she is the “woman” in Genesis 3:15 and the “woman” in Revelation 12. There is a secondary meaning and we see it in Revelation 12, that of the faithful, the Church.
You never did, not a one objecting, explained why the Son called His mother “woman.” Why would Jesus do that? Answer
the question. Men in the Old and the New call other women in Scripture “woman” and so did Our Lord but not their mothers.
This is getting old, you can’t give an answer.
Everything Our Lord stated was perfectly said.
The purpose of showing YOU YOUR church's opinions about certain things is to show YOU that THEY disagree with YOU. Got it? The Roman Catholic Church is not my authority because they have erred on many doctrines that were communicated to us from the Apostles in their writings (the New Testament of the Holy Bible). These were truths taught to them by Jesus Christ himself, both while he was physically present with them on earth and also when he ascended back to heaven. The "Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit". Sorry, but no pretend mystic or prophet can supersede what God has stated in his word.
Change on two things and you’ll make it through the Great Tribulation, all in God’s will. Believe in the Real Presence, the most Holy Eucharist and speak to Lord’s mother in prayer, she is your mother too. You will feel closer to her just like you do when you speak to Our Lord.
I don't need to change on anything I believe for the simple fact that I have already placed my trust in Jesus Christ and have received him as my Savior and Lord. He is ALWAYS present with us and participating in the Lord's Supper is done in "remembrance of Him", just like he said. According to Scripture, I am born again into the family of God never to be cast out, lost or separated from His love. The Tribulation is no threat to me because all believers in Christ will be taken up before this "Time of Jacob's Trouble" starts. Read I Thessalonians 4 and 5. I do not need to pray TO Mary because I pray directly to Jesus Christ, who is the ONLY mediator between God and man. Mary is NOT my mother but a sister in Christ like all other female believers. "The Blessed Trinity" has NOT given Mary "all graces to dispense". That is a false doctrine dreamed up by Mary worshippers as no Apostle spoke of such things in Scripture. Don't you think if that was the truth, God would have seen fit to say it in Scripture?
Go ahead and believe what you want, your preaching has NO effect because I am already redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ. Something I pray you may one day be assured of as well.
The words of Genesis 3:15 in the first Bible were altered drastically because of the rejection of Mary.
I have posted before the NAB rendering of this, which is of the church you want to convert us to, while you are at odds with your own official Bible:
KJV: Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
DRB: Gen 3:15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
NAB: I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; They will strike at your head, while you strike at their heel.
Because “the Son of God was revealed to destroy the works of the devil” (1 Jn 3:8), the passage was understood as the first promise of a redeemer for fallen humankind, the protoevangelium. Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. A.D. 130–200), in his Against Heresies 5.21.1, followed by several other Fathers of the Church, interpreted the verse as referring to Christ, and cited Gal 3:19 and 4:4 to support the reference
Meanwhile, do a search on the word (hû' / hı̂y') used for “it” in “it shall bruise thy head and find out how many times it is translated as “she” versus “he” or “it” and i think you find out who is changing the Bible to fit their doctrine.
The Church canonized Scripture and it follows, God gave her the same authority to interpret it.
Why do you simply reiterate an assertion as if that made it true, and ignore my refutation of it? As said, it took Rome over 1400 years to finally provide an indisputable canon, as the weight of Scripture is not critical for her doctrines. And in addition, even being the instrument and steward of Holy Writ does not make such the assured infallible interpreters of it, and if it did then the church would have needed to submit to those who sat in the seat of Moses in all that it taught.
...by maintaining God’s providence with regard to copying, a person claims something which is not written in Scripture, and therefore, by the very definition of Sola Scriptura, cannot serve as a rule of faith
That is a straw man SS, as this does not require explicit texts to constitute Scriptural teaching, and the preservation of the Word of God is promised in principle, in which God preservation is promised, and the “the word of the Lord/God” normally was subsequently written, and as Scripture alone is the only transcendent and material revelation that is wholly inspired of God then it is the assured word of God, versus amorphous oral tradition, which is not codified, and by nature is supremely subject to undetectable corruption, and must be subject to examination by Scripture.
He safeguarded its oral transmission as well (recall 2 Thessalonians 2:14 [15]
That is not speaking about eons-old mysterious nebulous oral tradition, but something that was know, and could have been written, as was the norm for truth called “the word of the Lord/God.”
And Paul upheld Scripture as the standard for obedience and testing truth claims, which it is abundantly evidenced to be, and it manner was to “reason out of the Scriptures,” and his preaching was proven thereby. (Acts 17:2).
And unlike Rome, Paul was manifestly Divinely inspired preacher and writer, yet preachers today can call their hearers to obey their oral words, as substantiated by Scripture.
It was not until later on that some of the oral tradition was committed to writing
Much of Scripture was first oral, but Scripture is the part of tradition that is the assured word of God, being established as being so due to its heavenly qualities, like as a true man of God is, even if not affirmed by men as he should be. To make oral tradition by decree is contrary to how Scripture was established, most of which took place b there was a church in Rome, and to make it equal to it is to essentially add to the canon, and makes the magisterium like inspired writers, even if they deny being on that level.
The prophecy given Anna Marie is being fulfilled, the awful rejection of Mary because of the revolters.
You have already been reproved by your own on this, and blithely dismiss evidence to the contrary in order to promote your own ideas, and i have lots to do. May God grant you grace unto repentance. (2Tim 2:25)
I am certainly interested in revealing truth - and for the Truth to be victorious- which requires objectivity, and more than superficial examination and analysis, which i present for others to judge, but when the other party asserts we need to be subject to Rome, even though the prophecies he publicly promotes have no official sanction, and dismisses reproof by his own, and requires his interpretation and choice of Bible be accepted even when the church he promotes does not, then it appears he is the one who sees himself right regardless, and is the supreme judge.
That was shown him and more, but continues undeterred,
I have been busy elsewhere, and have much to do, so i have not been following this for a couple days, but thanks.
It's not that no one has answered your numerous questions but rather that you do not accept the answers. You have your own ideas and beliefs and those who do not agree with you, you disparage. THAT is what is getting old, stpio.
Why did Jesus call Mary "woman"? First of all, those are the times recorded in Scripture where he used that name, not every time are we told what Jesus called his mother as he was growing up, are we? When he was three, did he call, "Woman!"? I doubt it. So the question must be why in the few times Mary and he are even mentioned in the same passage, he used the term. You say because he was giving us hints that would compliment the other times in Scripture the same word is used and we'd get it that Mary is the woman referenced. The problem with that is, of course, plenty of women in the Bible are addressed as "woman". Should we interpret that to mean ALL those women are also referenced in the Scripture passages such as Genesis 3:15 and Revelation 12? Hardly!
What the smart thing to do is to look at passages in their context and think about why certain words were used. When Jesus was preaching one day, a woman in the crowd yelled out, "Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked." (Luke 11:27) That would have been a perfect time for Jesus to introduce his mother and brag on her, don't you think? But what did he say? "Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it." "Rats!", Stpio says, "Why didn't Jesus do what I think he should have done and tell everybody how they need to worship Mary too and pray to her because she could save them?". Get over it, he didn't and the reason is because Mary is not who we should worship or pray to nor count on to save us. It is only Jesus that can do that and he alone deserves all praise and glory and honor.
So, why do I think Jesus called Mary "woman" in front of others? I think it goes back to that time in Luke 11 when maybe the first person came up with the idea to prop up Jesus' mother and, rather than agree with them, he wanted them to understand that ALL believers are equal in his eyes.
In Matthew 12, we are told of another occasion where Mary and Jesus' brothers and sisters were outside where he was preaching and they wanted to talk to him. Someone said to Jesus, "Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee." (Matthew 12:47) Wouldn't that be a good time to exalt his mother and family before the people just so they could "get it" that Mary was to be the "Queen of Heaven" and they should worship and adore her? But what did Jesus say? "But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother". Do you get it now? Jesus called his mother woman not because he was disrespecting her, but rather to demonstrate he did not have "favorites" and all were equal in his eyes. He is Almighty God incarnate, he existed before Mary was born. She was certainly blessed to be chosen to have the honor of bearing the Messiah, but she was not worthy to be worshiped. Through Jesus Christ were ALL things created and without Him was not anything made that was made. (John 1) He is Mary's creator, she gave birth to his incarnation. His incarnation had a beginning, but not his deity - He always was and always will be. Scripture says that all generations will call her blessed, and she was and is, but she is still a redeemed human being who was saved by the blood of Jesus Christ shed for all sin. It is because of this Jesus is:
Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me’” (Matthew 28:18).
“And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy” (Colossians 1:18).
“He will rule them with an iron scepter; he will dash them to pieces like pottery’—just as I have received authority from my Father” (Revelation 2:27, Jesus quoting Psalm 2:8-9).
“in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way” (Ephesians 1:20-23).
God “has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe” (Hebrews 1:2).
“‘you crowned him with glory and honor and put everything under his feet.’ In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him” (Hebrews 2:7-8).
“Why did Jesus call Mary “woman”? First of all, those are the times recorded in Scripture where he used that name, not every time are we told what Jesus called his mother as he was growing up, are we? When he was three, did he call, “Woman!”?”
~ ~ ~
Here you go again, avoiding the subject of discussion
and the divine help in the prophecy and Scripture.
Now instead of your excuse, saying Jesus called other women “woman” in the Gospel. Now you really grasping, saying did He call His mother “woman” when He was three years old.?
So what to both friend. Our Lord had an intention for addressing His mother as “woman.”
You still haven’t answered the question, why did Jesus
address His mother as “woman?”
No one has to as you say “prop” up Our Lord’s mother.
Since 1517, non-Catholic Christians interpret this verse to
say...seee...Mary isn’t extra special. Nor is she in Our Lord’s eyes.
Proof again, private interpretation of Scripture is a heresy.
For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother”.
What human person followed the will of God the Father more
than Mary? Proof, the first words to Mary from God the
Father in greeting...”Hail full of grace.” That’s pretty
special. Full of grace means full of God. Mary is sinless.
I’ll have to post for others, you are too set, Satan’s rejection of Mary when he heard the plan of Redemption.
You are dear though...
I hope you didn't expect a miraculous attitude change after lo, these many years. . . . the most apt Scripture I can think of is I Samuel 15:23
For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has rejected you as king."
New Living Translation (©2007)
Rebellion is as sinful as witchcraft, and stubbornness as bad as worshiping idols. So because you have rejected the command of the LORD, he has rejected you as king."
With some RC's it seems that the addiction to worshiping idols is as tenacioiusly, dogmatically held to as the addiction to stubbornness and arrogance. Though certainly plenty of Proddys in noxious places give them a good run for their idol fondling as well as their stubbornness and arrogance.
We can laugh at the absurdity of Ricky's prayer, but our laughter may have an edge of irony if we realize that we, like Ricky, try to make God into someone we can relate to--someone we can !!!CONTROL!!! and use for our benefit. To the extent that we "dumb God down" and create our own image of him {a la the example of the 1400 years of the RC Magisterical Power Mongers brazenly majoring in just that}, we miss out on the joy and the adventure of having a relationship with the REAL GOD. One of the most poignant moments in C.S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia is in the first book ... The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Mrs. Beaver tells Lucy about Aslan, the elusive lion of Narnia, who is a symbol of Christ in Lewis's stories. Mrs. Beaver tells the little girl of Aslan's power and majesty, and how he sometimes appears just in time when people need Him most desperately. Little Lucy feels overwhelmed with the thought that she might someday actually face the awesome beast. She asks timidly, "Oh, no, derie." Mrs Beaver laughs at the thought. "He's not safe. But He's Good." When Jesus stepped onto the planet, He didn't make everybody feel warm and comfortable. He accused His enemies of hurting the people they were supposed to protect, and these leaders were often furious with Him. And Jesus challenged His followers to give up their selfishness and devote themselves more fully to God than they ever thought possible. They were undoubtedly inspired, but often, also quite perplexed. Jesus' goal wasn't to win a popularity contest, His message was at the same time the most comforting and the most threatening ever heard. Wherever He went, no one took Him for granted. He was--and still is--the dividing point of history. Paul says that He came to bring freedom.^1 Jesus said it was His mission to bring life.^2 However, we have to take up our cross and follow Him.^3 To devote ourselves leads to life. And to experience His grace changes everything. Knowing HIm risks everything we thought we could !!!CONTROL!!! in our lives. Amazingly, it is the best and highest risk that we should ever take, for it is the difference between life and death, now and for all eternity. A God-centered life is soaked daily with an understanding and awe of Grace. In the Gospel story of the prodigal son we mentioned earlier, the younger brother's selfishness and sin is obvious. He wasted all he had on "wild living." The elder brother, though did everything right. He worked hard, sweated in the fields, and "never disobeyed" his father. At the end of the story, however, the younger brother was enjoying his father's love and acceptance at a lavish feast, while the elder brother bitterly remained outside. Obedience, then, isn't the highest virtue for a believer; it's faith. Throughout the Scriptures, we find people who did the right things but for the wrong reasons. In their self-sufficient pride, theyd din't want to admit that they needed a Savior. Instead, they tried to be their own saviors, giving until it hurt, attending services all day every day, praying for hours on end, {{Qx: fondling endless beads and statues}}, and sacrificing time, energy and resources to prove that they were "good and acceptable to God." Their obedience and hard work only fed their {{Qx: my}} pride and pushed them {{me}} further from God's heart. This is the great paradox of Grace. Sooner or later, we have to realize that we can never measure up to God's standard of perfect holiness.
Am reading GOD ATTACHMENT by Dr Tim Clinton and Joshua Straub . . . [Quixicated emphases added]
Came to this passage . . .
BROKENNESS BEGS FOR HEALING. Bondage begs for freedom. Addiction is only satisfied by grace.
From the opposite ends of the literary spectrum, we find observations about our relationship with God. Irish playwright . . . George Bernard Shaw noted with wry wit, "God created us in His image and we decided to return the favor."
It is impossible for flawed, finite human beings to truly grasp the transcendent nature of Almighty God . . .
Some of us it seems, don't even try. In Talledega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby, Ricky prays,
the gifts that Christ gives
to His beloved
is that of overcoming
self. --Francis of Assisi
WE'RE NOT.
Life with God is a pure gift, not a grind that we have to endure day after impossible day.
We may do a lot better than "that other guy," and that measure of comparison makes us feel good about ourselves--but that's not the way of Grace.
Genuine humility flowing from our recognition of how impossible it is for man to earn his way to God is the first step in grasping God's Grace. To illustrate this point, Jesus told a story:
{{The Pharsiee & the tax collector}} Luke 18:9-14
. . . In the story, the mark of Grace is seen in the tax collector's humble confession of sin, but the hard-hearted Pharisee believed he was better than everybody else because HE HAD DONE SO MUCH FOR GOD.
{{Qx: He had followed the organizational Magicsterical soooo faithfully . . . He'd jumped through all the hoops, landing adroitly almost always in the laps of the proper statues so properly . . . }}
Jesus' listeners that day would have been astounded. The prostitutes and tax gatherers were thrilled that God's Grace extended even to them, but the Pharisees would have been furioius that all their good deeds, loyalty, and giving amounted to nothing {{actually, as Isaiah 64:6 says our works of righteousness--amounted to used Ktx}}.
To experience God's Grace, we have to give up on ever trying to earn it. IT's a gift--nothing less and nothing else.
.
Reading that section has been a renewal challenge and encouragement . . .
HE IS HOLY
I'M NOT.
HIS HOLINESS is imparted to me via Christ's Blood. I could never remotely possibly earn it regardless of how many Magistericals I pleased or complied with.
Faith in Christ's Blood . . . so essential. So sufficient for Salvation.
What can wash away my sins . . . nothing but The Blood of Jesus, as the old hymn exalts so truly and majestically.
All else at least risks, if not wallows well over the lines of stubbornness, arrogance, idolatry, witchcraft.
Who will crush the head....?
Take a few moments and watch a short Youtube, The Vortex. Michael Voris answers better than I can the question, who is the “woman” in Genesis 3:15? He explains and returns the Latin Vulgate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMygWgRGw_Y
That's Romans 4 in a single sentence. Thanks!
Certainly
OBEDIENCE IS A SUPER HIGH PRIORITY WITH GOD
AS
Abraham offering Isaac up was an illustration.
However, I believe the authors are correct . . .
FAITH IS A HIGHER PRIORITY
and an over focus on obedience vs RELATIONSHIP results in
the SEDUCTIVE DEADLINESS OF
RELIGION.
We’ve been discussing private revelation, the 5th Dogma and
arguing over who is the “woman” in Genesis 3:15. We just
go around, especially on the last. People are not going to change until the Great Warning (Rev 6:12-17).
Sharing today, from Yahoo Groups - Seers 2, a yet to be approved Roman Catholic private revelation that is SO VERY serious, we are closer to the Great Tribulation. Our Lord mentions the Great Warning, it has different names, Protestants often hear it called the “awakening.” You’ll see the link to the seer, Anna Marie’s messages.
~ ~ ~
Apostolate of the Green Scapular April 11, 2012
MESSAGE FROM OUR SAVIOR JESUS YOUR NATION HAS GONE DARK WITH SIN
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 2012 @ 1:03 AM
Anna Marie: My Lord, are you calling me?
Jesus: Yes my dear one.
Anna Marie: My Lord are you Father, Son or Holy Spirit?
Jesus: Beloved, it is I your Savior, Jesus of Nazareth.
Anna Marie: My Lord may I ask, will you bow down and adore God Your Eternal Holy Father, Who Is the Alpha and Omega, the Creator of all life of all that is seen or unseen, visible or invisible?
Jesus: Yes my daughter, I your Divine Savior Jesus of Nazareth will now and will always bow down and adore my Holy Eternal Merciful Father, Who is the Alpha and Omega, the Creator of all life, of all that is seen or not seen, visible or invisible.
Anna Marie: Yes my Lord, please speak for your sinful servant is listening. And Jesus, may I also have a Scripture?
Jesus: Jeremias 9:10-15 and Ezechiel 14:8-22 (Refer to page 10 for Scripture).
Anna Marie: Thank you my Lord.
Jesus: As you know, your nation has gone very dark with sin. It has separated itself from my Father’s love because evil has pervaded man’s minds with every form of sin, lust, anger and occult activities. Now it will become darkened with hostile demonic possessed persons out to destroy my good and faithful servants.
Jesus: Prepare for the great awakening. Prepare your homes for a matter of time that you will need to care for those whom you love. The stores will be shut, supplies will be scarce and if you do not prepare now and during the Summer months, you will find yourself and your family members wanting.
Jesus: Look to the East, a storm is on the horizon. Behold an Angel of Death is coming to your shores. Prepare now while there is still time. Soon you will be tested, you must not be afraid to declare your love for Me, Jesus Christ, Savior and Redeemer of souls.
Anna Marie: My Lord, what does this mean? Is it a plague?
Jesus: No.
Anna Marie: Is it an Army?
Jesus: Yes. Be prepared to stand up for your family and my Churches on earth.
Anna Marie: Yes my Lord.
Jesus: Prepare now, before it is too late.
Anna Marie: Thank you my Lord, praise you Jesus for the warnings.
END OF MESSAGE
PLEASE NOTE: This Heavenly Message may be referring to another country who is involved in a war because the referenced Scripture. Although we do not know, we ask every person reading these pages to pray daily to God our Father for the mitigation of any war.
PLEASE NOTE: Our Spiritual Director believes this refers to the false prophet who is part of the unholy trinity as described in the Book of Apocalypse and what sufferings Jerusalem will endure in the near future.
What's wrong, you got to the first sentence and stopped reading? I certainly DID answer the question and you are doing exactly what I said you would. Go back and read my post so you'll know what that was. Gee, am I a prophet now, too???
I guess you believe St. Augustine was also guilty of "private interpretation" then? Here are a few of his writings concerning the issue of anyone's sinlessness BESIDES our Lord Jesus Christ:
From http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4165:
Moreover, just a short time before writing "On Nature and Grace," Augustine wrote "On Merits and Forgiveness of Sins," in which he spoke more clearly:
And again...
Likewise, at the very end of his life, in his "Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian," Augustine wrote something similar:
And if you will not accord weight to the testimony of an unfinished work, consider what Augustine wrote in his letters.
First, his letter to Jerome that was the same year as his publication of "On Nature and Grace":
Second, his letter to Optatus about two years later:
And then again to Optatus five years after writing "On Nature and Grace":
And while my correspondent simply asserts that Augustine did not come up with the content quoted in "On Nature and Grace," we can prove that Augustine -- in holding to the universality of original sin to those born from sexual intercourse -- was following his teacher Ambrose.
Saint Ambrose of Milan, Exposition of the Holy Gospel according to Saint Luke, trans. Theodosia Tomkinson (Etna: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1998), Book II, §56, p. 59.
Ambrose (c. 339-97):
No Conception is without iniquity, since there are no parents who have not fallen. (Nec conceptus iniquitatis exsors est, quoniam et parentes non carent lapsu. ) Prophetae David ad Theodosium Augustum, Caput XI, PL 14:873; for translation, see I. D. E. Thomas, The Golden Treasury of Patristic Quotations (Oklahoma City: Hearthstone Publishing, 1996), p. 258.
Ambrose (c. 339-97):
So, then, no one is without sin except God alone, for no one is without sin except God. Also, no one forgives sins except God alone, for it is also written: “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” And one cannot be the Creator of all except he be not a creature, and he who is not a creature is without doubt God; for it is written: “They worshipped the creature rather than the Creator, Who is God blessed for ever.” God also does not worship, but is worshipped, for it is written: “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shall thou serve.” NPNF2: Vol. X, On the Holy Spirit, Book III, Chapter 18, §133.
Ambrose (c. 339-97):
Let us therefore consider whether the Holy Spirit have any of these marks which may bear witness to His Godhead. And first let us treat of the point that none is without sin except God alone, and demand that they prove that the Holy Spirit has sin. NPNF2: Vol. X, On the Holy Spirit, Book III, Chapter 18, §134.
And we don't have to speculate whether Augustine was consciously agreeing with Ambrose:
Augustine (354-430 AD):
Say to this man [i.e., Ambrose], if you dare, that he makes the devil the creator of human beings who are born from the union of both sexes. He, after all, exempted Christ alone from the bonds of the guilty race, because he was born of a virgin. All the others coming after Adam are born under the debt of sin, the sin which the devil, of course, planted in them. Refute this man for condemning marriage, for he says that only the son of the virgin was born without sin. Charge this man with denying the attainment of virtue, since he says that vices are implanted in the human race at the very beginning of conception.
See John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Works of Saint Augustine, Answer to the Pelagians III, Answer to Julian, Book II:2, 4, Part 1, Vol. 24, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1998), p. 306.
Augustine (354-430 AD):
Moreover, when expounding the Gospel according to Luke, he [i.e. Ambrose] says: “It was no cohabitation with a husband which opened the secrets of the Virgin’s womb; rather was it the Holy Ghost which infused immaculate seed into her unviolated womb. For the Lord Jesus alone of those who are born of woman is holy, inasmuch as He experienced not the contact of earthly corruption, by reason of the novelty of His immaculate birth; nay, He repelled it by His heavenly majesty.”
NPNF1: Vol. V, Augustin’s Anti-Pelagian Works, The Grace of Christ And on Original Sin, Book II On Original Sin, Chapter 47. This same citation of Ambrose is likewise found in John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Works of Saint Augustine, Answer to the Pelagians III, Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian, Book I:66, Part 1, Vol. 25, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1999), p. 91; and again later in the same work, 4:121, p. 485; as well as in His Answer to Julian, as set forth above.
Perhaps you should ask yourself why your church only decided to define the dogma of Mary's sinlessness to be a dogma of faith until December 8, 1854, by Pope Pius IX? It isn't my private interpretation that is at issue here.
First, Augustine, although a saint and doctor of the Church was never acknowledged to be infallible. If you pick through enough of his works you will fine numerous errors and positions that shifted and evolved over time. (side question, why do you only cite him when he appears to agree with you and argue loudly against him when he agrees with the Magisterium of the Church?)
The Church did not wait to decide, it proclaimed, ex cathedra, what was a truth that had existed since the beginning of time.
Wouldn't you consider both faith and obedience acts of the will in response to the authority of God? Since faith is an act of obedience and obedience an act of faith how can you set one to a higher priority than the other?
Certainly humans have the capacity to turn most anything into an
‘angels on the head of a pin’ argument . . .
However, in this case . . . probably the Scripture . . .
‘without faith, it is impossible to please God’
speaks to me a bit louder.
Certainly God insists on both.
I think the author was emphasizing an
ABANDONING ALL TO GOD KIND OF FAITH.
And, I think Paul makes the priority of that reasonably clear in Hebrews.
I think the author’s point that a FOCUS . . . particularly an obsessive . . . perfectionistic, ‘pull one’s self up by one’s bootstraps’ mentality FOCUS
on slavish obedience
without first or primarily being
a CHOSEN LOVE SLAVE OF JESUS
produces DEADLY RELIGION.
I think that’s very true.
I do not claim "infallibility" for Augustine nor to the magesterium or Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. My use of him, in this matter, was to simply demonstrate that the "dogma" of the sinlessness of Mary was NOT universally held "from the beginning of time". Catholic Theologian Ludwig Ott wrote, “Neither the Greek nor the Latin Fathers explicitly teach the Immaculate Conception of Mary….individual Greek Fathers (e.g., Origen, Basil, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria) taught that Mary suffered from venial personal faults, such as ambition and vanity." (Ludwig Ott, pp. 201, 203)
BUT...
The Council of Trent declared that Mary was sinless throughout her whole life in 1547.
Pope Pius IX declared the Immaculate Conception on 12-8-1854.
Quite a time gap for insisting something - especially something as important as a specific human other than Jesus having sinless perfection - that contradicts Holy Scripture. If I had to choose between the Bible or a human institution to be my "authority", it would be the Bible because humans are NOT infallible no matter what Bible verses they twist to make it seem they are.
Since you have ventured into this thread once again, will you at least give your opinion of the original article? Do you stand by this Prophetess and her prophecies concerning what "Mary" is telling her will come to pass? I know we get sidetracked in these conversations, but do you have any thoughts about what this poster is trying to warn everyone about?
The four Marian Dogmas are true and so is the 5th and final Marian Dogma to be proclaimed soon.
The “woman” Jesus addressed at Cana is Mary
The “woman” Jesus addressed from the Cross is Mary
“His” “Ark” of the New Covenant in Heaven is Mary
The queen is the mother of the king in Holy Scripture, in the New Covenant, she is Mary
The “woman” clothed with the Sun and the moon under her feet with a “crown” of twelve stars is Mary
The “woman” who brought forth the man-child is Mary
There is a secondary meaning for the “woman” in Revelation Chapter 12, they are the faithful, the Church.
Not surprisingly, my thoughts fall right in line with the Church:
CCC67 - Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.
Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain nonChristian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations".
"When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him." - Deuteronomy 18:22
It’s ALL about Jesus - not ‘woman’ nor Mary or anyone else which includes you. It’s past time you got over yourself and stop telling others what they do or don’t according to what *you think*. In the scope of things, you don’t register on the ‘what’s important’ counter.
JESUS is THE SAVIOR. ONLY HE is WORTHY.
This may be a first for us, NL, I agree with you! One caveat to the warning the Lord gave in Deuteronomy about false prophets, he also said:
But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death. (Deut. 18:20)
Actually, we both agree with God. Finding the truth or a truth is the reason I participate in these threads these days.
1 Corinthians 12:28
And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly PROPHETS, thirdly doctors; after that miracles; then the graces of healing, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.
God speaks to every generation through the prophets, He makes explicit His plan. He doesn’t do anything without telling the world, you only have to believe.
Read private revelation and accept what is good and holy.
There is one end of time, God is speaking to non-Catholic
prophets to prepare our brothers and sisters too. He is
more explicit in the Catholic prophetic for a reason.
God is helping non-Catholic Christians in their current prophecy to accept the faith when it is revealed to them during the Great Warning and you all hear it called the “awakening.” If He was explicit about the true faith now, you would reject what you read. He speaks of unity and in the singular, there will be one Church, etc. It’s very gentle. He even refers to the most Holy Eucharist. I’ve share a link to Protestant prophecy, I can post it again.
“God is helping non-Catholic Christians in their current prophecy to accept the faith when it is revealed to them during the Great Warning and you all hear it called the “awakening.” If He was explicit about the true faith now, you would reject what you read. He speaks of unity and in the singular, there will be one Church, etc. It’s very gentle. He even refers to the most Holy Eucharist”...
~ ~ ~
Mary Clark receives lighthearted messages from Heaven, not the serious ones.
What Truth of God aren’t Protestants embracing? It is the Holy Eucharist which is the pinnacle. Accepting Our Lord’s presence in the Eucharist, you’ll see, then all other misunderstandings about the faith will fall away. Jesus is so lovingly trying to prepare our brothers ans sisters. In experiencing the Great Warning, people will be shown God’s revelation as He says here, you will know “God has spoken directly to your heart.” The world will experience the full Truth. Pray for conversions, not all Christians, non-Christians or all Catholics will say “yes.”
The “orb” is a hint....it is the sacred host, the Eucharist.
http://ft111.com/maryclark.htm
Full-orbed Truth
message to MARY CLARK
full-orbed - having the orb or disc fully illuminated
April 28, 2010
I want you, beloved, to come into the realization of My truth and embrace it with all that is in you.
It is for you. It is for you to embrace in its entirety.
The living God has given you something of rich value. He wants it deep within your heart.
He wants it at your fingertips, to be pondered and enjoyed. Do not hesitate to relish its deliciousness.
It is not only delicious, but it is nutrition for your very soul.
So I say to you, with words that come straight from My heart: Beloved, enjoy the richness of My truth. Let it be entwined in your heart.
Receive the wonder of its sweetness and know with a certainty that the day will arrive when you will embrace it in its entirety,
receiving the embellishment of its goodness, and knowing with all sincerity that the living God has spoken directly into your heart,
offering you a new era of wonder that comes only when one embraces Me and My words of truth with a whole heart.
I tell you, beloved, that I want you to receive My truth and all it supplies.
I want you to know the wonder that lies therein. I do not want you ignorant, dear one.
I want you fully equipped with the living Word.
As you look on My face, the shining of My truth will light the way into all of your tomorrows, into all of eternity.
"Thou wretched, rash, intruding fool, farewell.
I took thee for thy better. Take thy fortune.
Thou find’st to be too busy is some danger..." - Hamlet Act 3, scene 4
Hi everyone,
This message to Mary Clark is about the Great Warning, unity of Christians and the Holy Eucharist but it looks like no one wants to discuss.
Mary Clark is a non-Catholic prophet, what say you non-Catholic Christians?
I feel kind of rejected today by Catholics and Protestants here.
The messages from Heaven strengthen your faith and you are
reminded how much God loves us. The messages, nobody talks like that down here.
~ ~ ~
The “orb” is a hint....it is the sacred host, the Eucharist.
http://ft111.com/maryclark.htm
Full-orbed Truth
message to MARY CLARK
full-orbed - having the orb or disc fully illuminated
April 28, 2010
I want you, beloved, to come into the realization of My truth and embrace it with all that is in you.
It is for you. It is for you to embrace in its entirety.
The living God has given you something of rich value. He wants it deep within your heart.
He wants it at your fingertips, to be pondered and enjoyed. Do not hesitate to relish its deliciousness.
It is not only delicious, but it is nutrition for your very soul.
So I say to you, with words that come straight from My heart: Beloved, enjoy the richness of My truth. Let it be entwined in your heart.
Receive the wonder of its sweetness and know with a certainty that the day will arrive when you will embrace it in its entirety,
receiving the embellishment of its goodness, and knowing with all sincerity that the living God has spoken directly into your heart,
offering you a new era of wonder that comes only when one embraces Me and My words of truth with a whole heart.
I tell you, beloved, that I want you to receive My truth and all it supplies.
I want you to know the wonder that lies therein. I do not want you ignorant, dear one.
I want you fully equipped with the living Word.
As you look on My face, the shining of My truth will light the way into all of your tomorrows, into all of eternity.
Your Mariology is as only slightly less fanciful as your prophecy, and both will fail. The End.
Your Mariology is as only slightly less fanciful as your prophecy, and both will fail. The End.
~ ~ ~
What about the prophecy to Mary Clark? Do you deny she is a prophet? What is Our Lord saying in her message? I can understand you rejecting Catholic messages but not a message to a non-Catholic Christian seer.
Never heard of her, but from what i read (http://ft111.com/maryclark.htm) i wonder why a RC would promote her, as i do not see her preach the Catholic church, but the messages i see are positive about the love of God and patience in affliction, and makes no distinction in speaking about the church.
I do not think these are from God, as the tenor of the letters to the 7 churches, esp. the Laodiceans, is more what i would expect it such were from, and i see even the expressions (”Boo! I want to startle you out of your complacency.” “I am no faker” “..I am the real thing,” “Things are shaping up nicely, and according to My specifications”) as being like that of a sincere person but not the voice of God.
I have had other “thus saith the Lord” “prophetic” messages sent to me, and while i allow that God can do as He ever did, i do not feel any of of them are actually from God.
Now the words of Daniel Webster i would say are prophetic, if not on the level of Scripture:
— “If there is anything in my thoughts or style to commend, the credit is due to my parents for instilling in me an early love of the Scriptures. If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instructions and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity.”
If religious books are not widely circulated among the masses in this country, I do not know what is going to become of us as a nation. If truth be not diffused, error will be;
If God and His Word are not known and received, the devil and his works will gain the ascendancy; If the evangelical volume does not reach every hamlet, the pages of a corrupt and licentious literature will;
If the power of the Gospel is not felt throughout the length and breadth of the land, anarchy and misrule, degradation and misery, corruption and darkness will reign without mitigation or end.”
“Never heard of her, but from what i read (http://ft111.com/maryclark.htm) i wonder why a RC would promote her, as i do not see her preach the Catholic church, but the messages i see are positive about the love of God and patience in affliction, and makes no distinction in speaking about the church.”
~ ~ ~
Thank you for replying but you avoided my question.
What is Jesus saying in Mary Clark’s message?
You sound positive towards Mary Clark, if she was a Catholic prophet you would object and say her message isn’t true.
You use the word “promote” a lot. I posted Mary Clark’s message to show because there is one end time, God is saying the same thing in Catholic and Protestant messages from Heaven.
God is more specific in the Catholic because the Remnant is
Roman Catholic. In the Great Warning, this will be revealed. When God shows you (everyone on the earth), I don’t think you will fight the faith like you do now. When everyone is shown their life in review, that’s divine, no one can do this but God. This supernatural act of love and mercy is the 2nd Pentecost.
Change your heart about Our Lord’s presence in the Eucharist
and it would really help you to change your opinion of
who Mary is... It’s the Protestant rejection of Our Lord’s mother. Do not take things so personally, Our Lord’s mother cannot appear to Protestants less an exception until after or maybe at the Great Warning because you profess heresies.
Mary Clark doesn’t preach Catholicism, she is Protestant right now. Mary is hearing from Our Lord, (you admitted, speaking positively about her) concerning the time ahead. Back to the question.
The Eucharist looks like a dis and it is illuminating, you
remain a spiritual baby without it. Like Our Lord said,
it is nutrition for your soul.
I am asking again, Jesus repeats in the message to “embrace My Truth in it’s entirety.” What are you saying no to? Non-Catholics reject the Eucharist, the summit of belief.
Our Lord is getting you
ready for the Great Warning.
http://ft111.com/maryclark.htm
____ _____ _____
Full-orbed Truth
message to MARY CLARK
full-orbed - having the orb or disc fully illuminated
April 28, 2010
I want you, beloved, to come into the realization of My truth and embrace it with all that is in you.
It is for you. It is for you to embrace in its entirety.
The living God has given you something of rich value. He wants it deep within your heart.
He wants it at your fingertips, to be pondered and enjoyed. Do not hesitate to relish its deliciousness.
It is not only delicious, but it is nutrition for your very soul.
So I say to you, with words that come straight from My heart: Beloved, enjoy the richness of My truth. Let it be entwined in your heart.
Receive the wonder of its sweetness and know with a certainty that the day will arrive when you will embrace it in its entirety,
receiving the embellishment of its goodness, and knowing with all sincerity that the living God has spoken directly into your heart,
offering you a new era of wonder that comes only when one embraces Me and My words of truth with a whole heart.
I tell you, beloved, that I want you to receive My truth and all it supplies.
I want you to know the wonder that lies therein. I do not want you ignorant, dear one.
I want you fully equipped with the living Word.
As you look on My face, the shining of My truth will light the way into all of your tomorrows, into all of eternity.
Mary Clark doesn’t preach Catholicism, she is Protestant right now. Mary is hearing from Our Lord, (you admitted, speaking positively about her) concerning the time ahead.
I did NOT say she was hearing from the Lord, which is just another example of your practice of reading what you want to see into what is written.
And true to form, you invoke a Protestant purported prophetess and read into her message support for Romanism.
And likewise you must read Catholicism’ errors about the Lord supper, which is commemorated by exampling care for His body and blood made flesh in the sense of the body of Christ. http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Bible/1Cor._11.html#11
This exchange is over as you have amply demonstrated you want to see what supports your version of Roman Catholicism so much that it disallows objectivity, but may God grant you repentance.
“I did NOT say she was hearing from the Lord, which is just another example of your practice of reading what you want to see into what is written.”
~ ~ ~
predictable...you’re not going to talk about the meaning of the message to Mary Clark.
“Despise not Prophecy” says Scripture. You like what Mary
Clark preaches, you said it daniel, it is all prophecy she has received. Those aren’t her personal words.
You spoke to soon.
Why would Our Lord return to tell everyone, believe what you like. It’ fine, which ever Protestant sect, you choose it of the 38,000.
It isn’t going to happen. There are Black Masses offered
by Satanists and consecrated hosts are desecrated. Why?
The true faith is Roman Catholicism. Satan believes, can
you understand...
Our Lord wants you to become Catholic and soon He is going
to show you, hoping you’ll say “yes.”
Protestants cannot confect the Eucharist so they deny it.
You’re going to have to change, prayers for your conversion
daniel.
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.