Posted on 12/14/2014 11:57:21 AM PST by ealgeone
The reason for this article is to determine if the worship/veneration given to Mary by the catholic church is justified from a Biblical perspective. This will be evaluated using the Biblical standard and not man’s standard.
Me too with the typos. Feel like I’m sitting in front of Becky B during my junior year typing speedtest. (We’d mess up each other’s margins during the tests.)
That would be...
...Voila!
You’ve got it backward in my mind.
He was sayin that His “lack of power time” had not come from. Therefore, the wine issue was simply not a problem.
HE gave Himself for us. He willingly set aside His power and went to the cross. That’s what He meant by “my time has not come yet”.
His ministry obviously had already come. It began at His baptism, as Luke writes:
“21 When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened 22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” 23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,”
The baptism happened BEFORE the Wedding at Cana. I had to work through that “time has not come yet” thing when I first ran across this weak translation that appeared to have Jesus disrespecting his mother.
another correction: “He was sayin that His “lack of power time” had not come YET”....
I need coffee or something. Lol
Yep, and there are many of them which carried over into the DR.
It's rather plainly stated really.
John 2:4 Woman,a why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.
Putting aside the continuing irritation of the use of the word "Catholic" when obviously referring to the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical body ----
Once again, being as the five solas are all together, they are not each or any of them ever truly alone. Yet taken altogether they are not superlative to Scripture either, nor setting aside all traditions, but instead examining those to better recognize the difference between foundational traditions and lesser custom.
Skipping somewhat over portions of the assembled assertions which you presented, down to this which seems rather central to overall position, the same as in location of your textual reply;
betrays a paucity of rational logic in the continued (and vain) effort to make separation amongst & between two of the five solas, while invoking "full context" of scripture as some sort of an out?
Perhaps you may be thinking of those who are weak and imperfect in faith as expressed more completely within what RCC'ers perceive as "protestant" settings, and indeed there are those who are weak in the the framework of faith as that commonly and widely enough expressed. There are also those who may take off on less-than-well advised jaunts and wind up running off the road and into the ditches on either hand, or crashing against some obstruction, yet for reason that some get themselves into wrecks makes the RCC on it's own, all in it's lonesome the arbitrator of who can be given license to drive is just so much more of the continuing effort by those Roman Catholic to either forbid all others from practice of Christianity, remove what faith those not of their own ecclesia may indeed have (if possible) to once again re-assert that they and only "they" can not only "teach" but even -- confect the body of Christ, rendering Him in overall effect be consumed in an ongoing pharmacopoeia manner. No driver's licenses, no heavenly pharmacy, no soup for you, says "Rome" unless --- you prostrate yourself before us.
phffft. I can drive. And I have discerned the body of Christ, but only because He has opened that to me. My cup (o' soup?) runneth over. Not every single day, but from time-to-time.
Even though I do understand the interior mental gymnastics of [Roman] Catholic *thought*, at the same time I'm not quite sure how apparently, without taking note of the inherent contradiction you could write;
followed immediately with assertion of the direct and complete opposite;
after which you went to the old standby tactic of trotting out the book of James (as if sola scriptura adherents are incapable of understanding it) which passages on the surface may appear to place separation between faith & works, but which works Jame writes of are themselves but faith itself put into action, for the subject emphasized there remains still "faith" -- only not the type of "faith" which is mere mental consent, or "kind words of good intent" but an active living faith which produces action in positive result.
You did cite Ephesians 2:4-10. Let's have a look, and here to this page, verses 8-10;
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
Not by works lest any should boast, helps clear things up, when speaking of 'works' being necessary for salvation, and that we are saved for works, which Paul writes were predestined -- which you were possibly referring to in previous note when talking about "build terabytes of verbal fluff" resulting in superstition? Because I still have yet to see you produce any real evidence for that sort of thing which does not lead right back to the very scriptures I have been touching upon...
Excuse me, but do I really need to point out the scripture were it does speak of "churches" in plural?
Here again we have gone rapidly Swoosh from where original usage of the word "catholic" itself used as an adjective, and meaning in original usage ~universal~ Church, to go straight to speaking only of the one which has it's own geographical headquarters in Rome, using Catholic as pronoun to describe only itself, but which from earliest times was but one church among many, although by now has long asserted itself to be singularly ruler over all.
Then I do suggest that yourself and every other papist on the planet press your own ecclesiastical body's top-most leadership to have them cease and desist from asserting that their own "rule of faith" in regards to singular "papacy" as that is known of and theologically described to be proper and rightful by those of the Church of Rome alone, and then tender the resignation of the extent of that over-inflated claim to the the various Orthodox Churches as those are individually and separately known. Can't be having one denomination pulling apart and separating itself (as in theological principles) from all the rest, ya' know?
Your own ending with having invoked Matthew 16 is trumped by combination of Matthew 18 --- in regards for how those chapters were widely seen to have been understood as evidenced in the first many centuries ecclesiology of the Church.
Submit yourself, one to another, with nowhere was it stipulated that all must unilaterally submit to one particular Apostle over and above among all the rest, not to mention the concept that such an arrangement be the established ecclesiology which the singular bishopric which sprouted in Rome be that sole titular "successor to Peter", for it took many long centuries of those of Rome alone having periodically attempted to press that claim, before intervening warfare helped bring enough separation (much of it through a scattering and diminishing of the rest of the Church, many of the rest being eventually overcome by Islamics, etc.,) leaving the Church of Rome able to begin to think of itself and it's own bishopric, and then the later in development it's own "patriarchate" as THE patriarchate without outside bishoprics much hearing all that much about it, which if they did hear of, for a few centuries could regard it as referring to the so-called Western Church, and so set the matter aside, kick the can down the road, until it eventually became clearer -- hey -- the Church of Rome has become a fully unrepentant bully, with the big-throwdown of all the cards face-up and openly on the table in ways undeniable by all occurring in conjunction with the big East West Schism of 1054.
But lets' go back to the 6th century, where the energy towards the Church of Rome towards claiming that itself was The Catholic (Universal) Church, was latent, had been suppressed even in Rome, but stirring nonetheless;
Philip Schaff, in History of the Christian Church, Volume IV: Mediaeval Christianity. A.D. 590-1073 relates, under section heading § 51. Gregory and the Universal Episcopate. as late as 6th century Gregory the Great, the title Universal bishop was excoriated by that "pope" as;
Let's see that again? (lol)
"I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others....You know it, my brother; hath not the venerable Council of Chalcedon conferred the honorary title of 'universal' upon the bishops of this Apostolic See [Rome], whereof I am, by God's will, the servant? And yet none of us hath permitted this title to be given to him; none hath assumed this bold title, lest by assuming a special distinction in the dignity of the episcopate, we should seem to refuse it to all the brethren."
Here is one of those Orthodox to which the topmost leadership of the Church of Rome may in genuine humility offer their apologies for their own ecclesiastical forefathers having made such a mess of things, centuries ago;
Fr. Gregorio Cognetti, writing of that time when those of Rome were still quavering and not just a little bit double-minded on the issue (as Schaff notes Gregory unavoidably, when examined in full contexts cannot but be recognized as being) on the cusp of asserting fullest Universal episcopacy, a One Bishop under which there were only lesser bishops, thus making the church in effect one. single. Bishopric. ἐπίσκοπος (episkopos)
Beginning part-way down, fr. Cognetti;
All the trouble started when the title was communicated to the Pope of Rome: it was translated into Latin as Patricharcha Universalis, i.e., "Universal Patriarch." Pope Gregory reacted because he thought that John was arrogating the supremacy in the Church. Of course, this was not Patriarch John's aim. Some Roman Catholic writers claim that Gregory was vindicating the supremacy to himself. But it was not so. The letters of St. Gregory the Great are available to anybody who wishes to read them. The readers can judge by themselves. Let us start from this letter that he addressed to Patriarch John:"Consider, I pray thee, that in this rash presumption the peace of the whole Church is disturbed, and that [the title of Ecumenical Patriarch] is in contradiction to the grace that is poured out on all in common; in which grace doubtless thou thyself wilt have power to grow so far as thou determinist with thyself to do so. And thou wilt become by so much the greater as thou restrainest thyself from the usurpation of a proud and foolish title: and thou wilt make advance in proportion as thou are not bent on arrogation by derogation of thy brethren...
"Certainly Peter, the first of the apostles, himself a member of the holy and universal Church, Paul, Andrew, John-what were they but heads of particular communities? And yet all were members under one Head... "...the prelates of this Apostolic See, which by the providence of God I serve, had the honor offered them of being called universal by the venerable Council of Chalcedon. But yet not one of them has ever wished to be called by such a title, or seized upon this ill-advised name, lest if, in virtue of the rank of the pontificate he took to himself the glory of singularity, he might seem to have denied it to all his brethren..." (Book V, Epistle XVIII)
We do not know St. John the Faster's reply. Probably he did not reply at all because he died about one year after St. Gregory's letter (mail was very slow in that period, and one year was not an unreasonable time for a letter to travel from Rome to Constantinople). But St. Gregory continued to express his opinion on Universal Episcopacy. He wrote to Eulogios, Bishop of Alexandria and to Anastasius, Bishop of Antioch in such terms: "This name of Universality was offered by the Holy Synod of Chalcedon to the pontiff of the apostolic see which by the Providence of God I serve. But no one of my predecessors has ever consented to use this so profane a title since, forsooth, if one Patriarch is called Universal, the name of Patriarch in the case of the rest is derogated. But far be this from the mind of a Christian that any on should wish to seize for himself that whereby he might seem in the least degree to lessen the honor of his brethren..." (Book V: Epistle XLIII)
To Emperor Maurice:
"Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others. (Book VII: Epistle XXXIII)
And again to Eulogios, Bishop of Alexandria:
"Your Blessedness... You address me saying, 'As you have commanded.' This word 'command', I beg you to remove from my hearing, since I know who I am, and who you are. For in position you are my brethren, in character, my fathers... "...in the preface of the epistle which you have addressed to myself, who forbade it, you have thought fit to make use of a proud appellation, calling me Universal Pope. But I beg you most sweet Holiness to do this no more, since what is given to another beyond what reason demands, is subtracted from yourself... For if your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what you call me universally." (Book VIII: Epistle XXX)
This story teaches us another lesson. Many times, when we are confronted by the spectacle of events that do not fit the glorious image of the Holy Orthodox Church, we are ready to ask why God allows that such an evil thing happen in His Church. Undoubtedly many people at the time of these events grieved because of the misunderstanding that embittered the relationships between two pious bishops, between two great saints of the Church. And surely, at that time, somebody asked why God allows that such an evil thing happen in His Church. The answer is clear today. The Holy Spirit allowed this misunderstanding so that the opposition of a very eminent Pope to papal authority be well documented. Without these letters we would not have the striking evidence that even in Rome the right to claim a primacy was not recognized.
So Protestantism is condemned by the Word of God squarely.
In your dreams, jelly-bean.
Speaking of things square, squarely as my own foot is square, and not even as square as a Pollack's head;
How does the barber charge a Pollack for a haircut?
$2 a corner
How does he charge a Finn?
$8 a point
You can say THAT again!
(But...
...please don’t just now.)
See John 2:4. Jesus told her His time had not come yet. She hadn’t read the script and was jumping the gun.
The Hour of his passion when He would willingly render Himself not using His power.
Matthew 26:45
Then he returned to the disciples and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? Look, the hour has come, and the Son of Man is delivered into the hands of sinners.
If you’re saying what I think you’re saying that is not what He was talking about in John 2 at the wedding. The “my hour has not come” meant the hour He would reveal His true power.
Jn 12:23 And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified.
John 12:27 12:27 – “Now my soul is troubled. And what should I say—‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it is for this reason that I have come to this hour.”
John 17: 1 - 17:1 – After Jesus had spoken these words, he looked up to heaven and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you.”
Disagree. John clearly says the Wedding at Cana was one of Jesus’ planned, important miracles. “John 2: 11 This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed at Cana in Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him. “
Actually, His words indicated that Mary KNEW already about His passion. In fact, she did know. Simeon the prophet told her at the Temple when Jesus was circumcised. And it wasn't an illiterate era. Jesus and other males read from the Torah in the synagogue. So, she could read from Isaiah or have read to her from Isaiah just as easily as anyone else.
His disciples didn't understand, but Mary had been told "a sword will pierce your heart, too." Luke 2: "34 Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: "This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, 35 so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too.""
Wonder why the 'too'? Who else would be pierced?
God is not bound by time. He created it.
WOW.
So someone is trying to portray Christ as saying that Mary’s heart is divine?
It’s ridiculous what lengths people will go to, to justify Mary worship.
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.