Pope Francis Entrusts Holy Land Pilgrimage to Mary

NC Register ^ | 5/23/2014 | BY CNA/EWTN NEWS

[ebb tide]

Who has said otherwise?

[delchiante]

But this ‘Mary’, does point to Jesus in one of these promises...

14. All who recite the Rosary are my Sons, and brothers of my Only Son Jesus Christ

If scripture proves this prophetess spirit is a liar, where does her lies end and stop?

Can a liar point to the Way, Truth and Life?

Proverbs 14:25
A true witness delivers souls, but he that utters lies causes deceit..

Makes the issue of the name of Jesus or Joshua in the two verses, Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8, seem a little more interesting.

Some translations have changed those Jesus’ to Joshua properly.. but ‘tradition’has kept the other 900 plus as Jesus even though the English transliteration is Joshua..

Or how many Jesus’ are there?
One for the Catholics with this lying mary
And one for everybody else where mary says nothing?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

You said Jesus referred to her as His mother. Not there. Is there another verse you are thinking about?

[Former Fetus]

Funny how you changed me from not being confident in my religion to comparing me to Osama bin Laden. To answer your question, I believe I am the only born-again Christian in the group, so that makes me the only one right!

[Former Fetus]

Again, I believe that Mary was the mother of Jesus the person. But the Second person of the Trinity existed at the time of the creation of the world (John 1:1) and before! And now, seriously, good night, I am turning the computer off. Maybe you went to mass this afternoon and plan to sleep late tomorrow, but other people have Sunday school and Sunday morning service to attend.

[Mercat]

Sad for you.

[Salvation]

Good grief! Have you never read John's account of the Wedding at Cana and how Jesus manifested himself there at the request of his mother

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN

Chapter 2

1 On the third day there was a wedding in Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.
2 Jesus and his disciples were also invited to the wedding.
3 When the wine ran short, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine."
4 (And) Jesus said to her, "Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come."
5 His mother said to the servers, "Do whatever he tells you."
6 Now there were six stone water jars there for Jewish ceremonial washings, each holding twenty to thirty gallons.
7 Jesus told them, "Fill the jars with water." So they filled them to the brim.
8 Then he told them, "Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter." So they took it.
9 And when the headwaiter tasted the water that had become wine, without knowing where it came from (although the servers who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom
10 and said to him, "Everyone serves good wine first, and then when people have drunk freely, an inferior one; but you have kept the good wine until now."
11 Jesus did this as the beginning of his signs in Cana in Galilee and so revealed his glory, and his disciples began to believe in him.

[ebb tide]

I didn’t change anything. I just like pointing out how many different people are so confident in their particular “religions”.

[ebb tide]

St. John said it. Are you calling him a liar?

What does your particular Bible say?

[ebb tide]

I am confident enough to know that I don't need any works on my part to be saved, just believe in Him who gave His life for me and accept Him as the Lord of my life.

Why not accept His Mother while you're at it? As far as "don't need any works", I strongly disagree. Penance is preached throughout the Bible.

[delchiante]

13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.

14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. 15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and WHOEVER LOVES and PRACTICES a LIE..

Having lies revealed to someone in the Light of Truth is a blessing from our Heavenly Father..they may sting one’s pride in their church and traditions or their own beliefs but certainly truth is not a cause for sadness..

and rather, cause for praise to our Heavenly Father..

I implore all Catholics and Protestants to get one of those booklets or re-read them now you are an adult (and not an impressionable child), and try to defend their faith in those promises - or defend their stance against them as lies with what catholics say they have been entrusted with distributng- His Word.

[Nifster]

You and I will politely have to agree to disagree. I do not want to cause discomfort to those of the roman faith. Your arguments (and Liguori who was merely human like the rest of us) are not convincing.

I am saved by grace. The Nazarene taught me how to pray.... and it does not include a prayer to His earthly mother

[Nifster]

Since I am not of the roman faith and have never prayed the rosary (nor do I wish to), I will check it out more as an intellectual exercise. Mary is not my savior nor is she any of the things that the roman church has made up over the years.

I know there are many of the roman faith on FR. I do not wish to offend. I just note that various councils over the years keep adding to the basic gospel.

[eastsider]

So now I am totally confused. Are you agreeing with Catholic theology or not? Kinsman’s responses made me think you do not.

I am truly flattered by the suggestion that my post is such a theological Rorshach test that posters from different sides of the Great Divide of FR's Religion Forum can see in it some support for their respective positions. Can the parousia be far behind?

Seriously, I am a Catholic Christian who is deeply in love with the Lord for his having first loved me ('who is forgiven much loves much'), and I want nothing more than to be a witness to his mercy and love and to glorify his holy name (and here I but echo Mary's words at Lk 1:49).

kinsman, you asked at #105 that I declare: "What efficacy is there in intercessory prayer - other that through Jesus Christ?" Although it's really outside the scope of my interest on this thread, I feel I owe you some kind of reply for three reasons: (1) your question is directly related to the article at the top of this thread (how novel!); (2) the two of us registered on FR during the same year (and, I'm sure, were similarly motivated to do so by the shameful behavior of the Rapist-in-Chief), so I feel a certain bond between us; and (3) you asked me so danged politely : )

Here's the general outline of my reply:

Paul is clear at 1Tim 2:5 that there is only one mediator between God and man, and that one mediator is the God-man Christ Jesus. Through baptism, we are all incorporated into the Body of Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 12:13), and as members of his Body, we mediate God's graces to others. For example, we say colloquially that Peter raised Tabitha from the dead (Acts 9), but as Christ said on the occasion of his raising of Lazarus from the dead (Jn 11), "I am the resurrection and the life." Do these two episodes contradict one another? Can we say that Peter raised Tabitha? Sure, we can say it, as long as we understand that Christ is the one doing the heaving lifting here and that Peter is mediating God's gift of life to Tabitha. (I am careful here to point out that we do need to acknowledge the response of faith on the part of any such 'secondary' or 'derivative' mediator for any secondary mediation, if you will, of God's grace; indeed, Christ himself had trouble working miracles in Nazareth because of the people's lack of faith (cf Mk 6:4-5)). The point is that we have plenty of evidence to support the notion that Christians can mediate God's grace.

Now I realize that you want to know whether a Christian who is asleep in Christ (i.e., dead) can mediate for us (or intercede for us -- and I freely confess that in this truncated reply I am using to mediate and to intercede interchangeably). But that's not what you asked, and for a number of reasons I'm arbitrarily giving only one bite of the apple tonight on this question.

Peace.

[BlueDragon]

You lost me when you referenced Jimmy Akin. I consider this “ex-protestant” to be no more Catholic than Scott Hahn.

I am forever flabbergasted at some of the asinine answers I see or receive on this forum...

It doesn't matter one whit what you think of those two, I only mentioned Akin's argument out of mercy to Roman Catholic views as to how the translation ended up as it did, not as some basis which all would hinge upon.

Besides...Akin was likely wrong anyway, in that Jerome may have chosen to put it into Latin as "she" would crush the serpent, etc., rather than a "he" would do so (as male gendered "seed of the woman"). BUT--- Jerome did correct himself later, as I will give some citation for below along with other discussion.

Gen 3:15 from the Douay-Rheims is about the ONLY translation nowadays which renders a feminine "she" rather than a "he" will crush the head of the snake, and the snake bruise "her" -- rather than "he" or even a "they" have their heel bruised, with this being for textual reasons rather than some sort of Protestant/Jewish combo plot to frustrate Catholicism...

Did you know that the online Vulgate, at the Vatican site renders the words in question in the masculine rather than the feminine?

Here;

14 Et ait Dominus Deus ad serpentem:
“Quia fecisti hoc, maledictus es
inter omnia pecora
et omnes bestias agri!
Super pectus tuum gradieris
et pulverem comedes cunctis
diebus vitae tuae.

15 Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem
et semen tuum et semen illius;
ipsum conteret caput tuum,
et tu conteres calcaneum eius”.

which translates as;

14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent,
"Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed
all cattle
and all wild
On your belly
and dust shalt thou eat all
your life.

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman,
and thy seed and her seed;
he will crush your head,
and thou shalt bruise his heel. "

In previous comment I supplied link to other English translations, so will not here again repeat the same.

The U.S. Bishops use a "they" shall crush the serpent's head.

Even the highest authorities in your own church are against the DR nowadays, at least as far as Gen 3:15 goes, so the answer to the question "how's this for biblical" which you asked while using the DR version of Gen 3:15 for support of Marionism, is still a resounding "no". You will need to look elsewhere than that particular verse for support of the cult to the extent it (the cult) would prefer the texts to support their opinions.

If we look to the Greek texts--- there is not much succor for the cult (of "Mary") there in regards to Gen 3:15, for those texts carry the Greek masculine forms in that verse, with none of this "she" shall be the one business, but rather more uniformly is presented a "he" shall directly crush the head (of the serpent) and have "his" own heel be bruised.

Going to the Hebrew texts -- it is more possible to translate an "it", "he" or even "they" shall crush the head (of the serpent) and themselves be bruised at the heel, which is how the USCCB chose to present translation for that particular verse, with footnotes there explaining their reasoning on theological grounds instead of going into textual/manuscript reasons, which for this particular verse can be more complicated than one may think...

Still, the DR is a lonely outcast nowadays.

You do know that Jerome preferred Hebrew texts for OT translation work (at least he wrote that he did, having mentioned that often) compared to the more than a few Greek versions that were extant in his day? He commented upon/griped about the various Greek versions in many of his letters.

It's a long story, but amid what Jerome termed "Hebraica veritas" or "the Hebrew is truth" when speaking of OT, he did write a note of correction for his own previous use of the feminine rather than masculine or gender neutral, in a book (or booklet) entitled (as translated into English) Hebrew Questions on Genesis saying;

"3:15 It shall watch your head, and you shall watch its heel. More correctly, it has in the Hebrew, 'it will crush your head, and you shall crush its heel.' For our footsteps are indeed shackled by the serpent, 'and the Lord shall crush Satan under our feet swiftly.'" [C.T.R. Hayward,Saint Jerome's Hebrew Questions on Genesis, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995, p. 33]

Previously you dissed and dismissed Jimmy Akin (along with Scott Hahn as an "ex-protestant" Marionist that somehow wasn't doing right).

Will you know off-handedly dismiss the RCC "Magesterium" in it's own (perhaps only) official Scripture, along with tossing aside the USCCB and Jerome also -- that "blessed doctor of the Church"?

[Rome2000]

LOL

Pray for the Pope's safety, he is the boss of the faith founded by Christ 2000 years ago.

You and every other Protestant are free to go into the Jesus business for yourself, nobody is stopping you.

[piusv]

OK, I thought you might be Catholic because your response was thoroughly Catholic.

[Mercat]

I assume you mean Mary, the mother of Jesus when you say false prophetess. I went through in my mind the times in the Bible when she speaks and is spoken to. I checked the “authorized” King James version. See the following: Luke 1:28-55; Luke 2:19; Luke 2:33-35; Luke 2:48; John 2:1-5; John 19:26-27. I’m aware in Matthew and Mark where Jesus said that the people who follow him are his mother and brothers etc. Mary followed him. She was there. She was his first disciple. Where does she prophesize? How is she a false prophetess? Is it your position that Jesus does not love his mother? If we are to love those whom Jesus love, how can we not love Mary?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Salvation, in short, yes I read it. That has nothing to do with the statement I was responding to. Perhaps if you reviewed the earlier exchange...

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“St. John said it. Are you calling him a liar?

What does your particular Bible say?”

But your claim was that “Jesus referred to Mary as His Motger while on the cross.”

It seems you didn’t remember accurately.