Posted on 03/25/2015 10:46:15 PM PDT by Steelfish
Because Mary Said “Yes…” — A Reflection For The Solemnity of the Annunciation of Our Lord
March 25, 2011 by Fr. Thomas Rosica
Standing in the middle of the present day city of Nazareth is the mammoth Basilica of the Annunciation, built around what is believed to be the dwelling of Mary. In a grotto-like room at the heart of the basilica is a small inscription on an altar. It reads, “verbum caro hic factum est,” here the Word became flesh. There, it is believed, the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary, and her response changed the world forever.
Imagine yourself in Mary’s place, asked to say “yes” to a divine plan so vast, so profound and so seemingly impossible that you cannot comprehend it. “How can this be?” she asks, bewildered. She is rooted in the faith of her ancestors, and yet now an angel has appeared in the midst of everyday life, extending a startling invitation. “You have found favor with God,” the angel says, “and you will conceive and bear His Son.” Will she accept?
It is Mary above all others who can teach us what it means to live by faith, and how to respond when God’s providence disrupts the daily course of our lives, overturning its rhythms and expectations. Despite her fears and uncertainty over how this promise could be fulfilled, she still answered “Yes.” Are we able to respond to God this way?
When we reflect on the Annunciation to Mary, and her acceptance of the angel’s message, we also reflect on our own vocation — our own calling from God. In the Lord’s Prayer, we pray, “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” — an echo of Mary’s “Be it done unto me according to your word.”
Each time we commit ourselves to embracing God’s call and accepting His will, we mark a new point on the path of our relationship with Him. For the rest of her life, Mary pondered her extraordinary encounter with God, turning the weight of the angel’s message over and over again in her heart. From the manger to the cross, Mary’s life was radically changed — her relationship with God profoundly deepened — the moment she said “Yes.”
Mary received and welcomed God’s Word in the fullest sense — becoming impregnated with it, and bearing it to the world. Angels might not appear in our doorsteps, but we do encounter God in each of our daily prayers, and he whispers to us a similar invitation: Will we accept His love and bring it joyously to those around us? Will we trust in His providence, even when we can’t see the path ahead? Amid the noise of everyday life, will we listen for and embrace his call?
When making his pilgrimage to the Basilica of the Annunciation, Pope Benedict XVI offered this prayer to the humble Virgin of Nazareth. It speaks for all of us who likewise seek to accept God’s will with joy:
Mary, Mother of the “Yes,” you listened to Jesus, and know the tone of his voice and the beating of his heart. Morning Star, speak to us of him, and tell us about your journey of following him on the path of faith."
Actually, you presented the Roman Catholic Cultic interpretation of scripture... you didn't "show" anything of the sort.
Now... since the CCC states that Catholics and Muslims "adore" and "acknowledge' the same "merciful God' -- and since Muslims worship "Allah" who is NOT the God (Yahweh, or Jehovah, or I AM -- the God of Christianity), do you worship Allah or God Almighty?
It's a simple question, really, and one that can be answered by either saying:
-> I believe in God Almighty, which means you are in disagreement with the teaching of your church; or,
-> I believe in Allah, which means you are in agreement with the teaching of your church.
Easy sneezy.
In whom do YOU believe?
Hoss
**I’ve never taken scripture out of context.**
Give me a couple of days to dig up a good list, trucking has me swamped right now. I’m confident that it will be convincing for any that are wanting to see it.
**If you don’t like my posts, then don’t respond.**
Remember the 27-0 stretch of scripture references, where you chose not tuse use ANY scripture to build your position?
**No. I post truth.**
Avoiding the use of scripture is not a good way to try and post truth.
**And if your point is a waste of my time because it has no validity why should I respond to it?**
No scripture, no validity.
I said: “I pointed out that Mary was in the same boat as the others at the wedding: no wine for them, or her and the fam.”
That was my opinion.
You said: She was not in the same boat. The marrying couple would have lost face not Mary. Hence, she said, “THEY have no more wine.”
That was your opinion.
Well, my KJV says, “They have no wine”. Now, I would have to say that you’d have to have a more detailed story to label who “THEY” is. ‘They’ could be the wedding party, the servants, or everybody besides Mary, Jesus, and his disciples. Look at the sequence:
Verse 1. Marriage in Cana, and Mary was there.
verse 2. Jesus and his disciples were called to the marriage. (It sez they were called, as though they weren’t there from the start, or it probably would have said that they were ‘there’, just as Mary was ‘there’.
verse 3. “And when they wanted wine....”. Who is they?....we just got done talking about Jesus and his disciples showing up because they were ‘called’. Mary has to break it to them that they are out of the wine.
The testamony by the governor of the feast indicates his appreciation of the better wine; nothing about going without for a bit. He said: “..thou hast kept the good wine until now.” He had apparently drank enough to expect some poorer wine by then.
Losing face?.....I think that’s just more personal opinion.
“The wedding of Cana has always been thought of as an example and foreshadowing of Mary’s intercession.”
Always? Since some pope said so?
**If you can’t even accurately post what someone ACTUALLY WROTE how can anyone have a worthwhile discussion with you?**
Just my opinion, but I think I might be trying harder than you to have a worthwhile discussion.
False; I clearly presented the King James Version, which you rejected because of "Whom" they worshipped.
Now... since the CCC states that Catholics and Muslims "adore" and "acknowledge' the same "merciful God' -- and since Muslims worship "Allah" who is NOT the God (Yahweh, or Jehovah, or I AM -- the God of Christianity), do you worship Allah or God Almighty?
You do not understand the Arabic or the Hebrew behind the English you use. Look again at the Hebrew for "God Almighty" and ask God for wisdom.
It's a simple question, really, and one that can be answered by either saying:
It is an ignorant question, revealing the lack of language skill in the poser. Did you have any bona fide education whatsoever in Semitic languages before naming yourself an "Internet Theologian"? There is danger in provincial Lone Ranger theologians, accountable to no one but themselves in antiCatholic, no longer Protestant, devolving sects and cults.
What “He had written” was posed as a question.
Try not to get wrapped up deeply in personal issues, it makes the thread about you and another poster instead of the issues.
Thank you.
I continue to read long, tortuous posts that aren’t telling me much.
Do you agree with the CCC, or not? Either you do, or you do not.
This isn’t about Semitic languages; it’s about the the question: why so hard to type “yes” or “no”?
Either you agree with the Roman Cult, or you believe in the one true living God.
I didn’t make dilemma, Rome did.
Hoss
Should be “ I didn’t make the dilemma”
And your lack of a simple answer actually IS your answer.
Very sad really.
Take care and thanks for your service.
Hoss
“Give me a couple of days to dig up a good list,”
Oh, you can make up a list - but it won’t show me EVER taking scripture out of context since I’ve never done it. The simple fact is Protestants lack context for scripture in general.
“I’m confident that it will be convincing for any that are wanting to see it.”
Nope. Only the Protestant anti-Catholics will buy into it because they are pre-disposed to do so. That’s exactly the problem arguing scripture with Protestant anti-Catholics.
“Remember the 27-0 stretch of scripture references, where you chose not tuse use ANY scripture to build your position?”
It doesn’t matter - you’re wrong. Post hundreds of verses that DON’T SAY WHAT YOU CLAIM THEY DO and you’re still wrong. What part of that do you not understand?
“Avoiding the use of scripture is not a good way to try and post truth.”
Truth is truth no matter what.
“No scripture, no validity.”
That’s a false conclusion. No scriptural verse contains a Table of Contents for the Bible yet you probably still believe you know what books are inspired, right? So, there’s your false conclusion shot down right there.
“That was my opinion.”
Post more truth and less of your opinion and your posts would matter more.
“That was your opinion.”
Nope. It is an irrefutable fact. She was not the one marrying. She was not the one who would lose face by the lack of wine. That’s irrefutable. You demand scripture. I post a direct quote that refutes you and then you claim it is my opinion. See why it is useless to argue scripture with a Protestant anti-Catholic?
“‘They’ could be the wedding party, the servants, or everybody besides Mary, Jesus, and his disciples.”
No. Think. Even if “they” refers to the wait staff it still means the marrying couple had NO WINE. Seriously, you’re making a ridiculous argument. If the wait staff had no wine to distribute that means the marrying couple had no wine. Period!
“Look at the sequence:”
The sequence doesn’t change the simple end result: THEY HAD NO WINE and that means THE MARRYING COUPLE HAD NO WINE.
“The testamony by the governor of the feast indicates his appreciation of the better wine; nothing about going without for a bit.”
Oh, my gosh. Look at the quote again: “They have no more wine.” NO MORE WINE.
“Losing face?.....I think that’s just more personal opinion.”
No. Have you never attended a wedding? Seriously? What you are ascribing to “personal opinion” is actually the STANDARD INTERPRETATION for centuries and centuries: https://books.google.com/books?id=6JYgc2iH_skC&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=wedding+of+cana+losing+face&source=bl&ots=xFt6n1UrqJ&sig=GPHEvU9EN53itZzWJybjlU8JspA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vikdVcjWMsWfggTK7ICwCA&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=wedding%20of%20cana%20losing%20face&f=false INCLUDING AMONG PROTESTANTS!!!
“Always?”
Yep.
“Since some pope said so?”
Nope. The whole Church.
“Just my opinion, but I think I might be trying harder than you to have a worthwhile discussion.”
If you’re denying that THEY HAVE NO MORE WINE doesn’t mean what it says, then, no, I don’t think you are.
Let’s get something straight right away: THEY HAVE NO MORE WINE means THEY HAVE NO MORE WINE. If you can’t say THEY HAVE NO MORE WINE means THEY HAVE NO MORE WINE then there’s no point to this “discussion” is there?
17. God the Father imparted to Mary his fruitfulness as far as a mere creature was capable of receiving it, to enable her to bring forth his Son and all the members of his mystical body.
18. God the Son came into her virginal womb as a new Adam into his earthly paradise, to take his delight there and produce hidden wonders of grace.
Your comments are not only at odds with the Catechism of the Catholic Church but with the scriptures as well. Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. wrote said that even the Athenians were worshiping God, though ignorantly. It can be said of the Moslems that they worship the God of Abraham in ignorance as well. Any semantic difference between "worship" and "adore" is insignificant for they surely are zealous for the God of Abraham in their ignorance.
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
And still not a "yes", or "no". Isn't that funny. All of this back and forth over one little question.
Your CCC is written in English, as I can read it and as you can read it. As can anyone. 841 plainly states the following:
"841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.""
Now. Read with me. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims."
First, the plan of salvation includes those who God calls and whose hearts he opens to their need of a savior -- Jesus Christ - not those who "acknowledge" something.
Next. notice that the CCC states "the Creator" -- not "a creator." The word "those" is inclusive of the Muslims as is stated at the end of the sentence. In fact, the Muslims are "in the first place amongst" those -- the group that acknowledges "the Creator."
Now. Please tell me you passed basic english and grammar in school. The CCC states that Muslims acknowledge "the Creator." Is there more than one?
Let's keep reading: "...and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
This says what? "Together with us (Catholics), they (Muslims) adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
How much more plainly can these be put? As for the claim made (that you agree with) that Catholicism and Islam are not mixed, but have things in common... really? Do you really agree with that? Have you ever read the Koran? I have. Islam and Christianity have NOTHING in common.
Does Islam?
Islam was made up by Mohammed in the 700s or 800s. MADE UP. Not given to him by God. If Mohammedans worshipped the same God, there would be no need for Islam -- they would be Christian. ONE God, remember?
Muslims worship "Allah." Is "Allah" the same as God Almighty? Yes or no? Please choose one.
So regardless of which posters you agree with, or whether you agree with me calling the Catholic Church a cult, or if there is some expertise in languages other than english, it all boils down to what YOUR CHURCH SAYS in it's catechism, and whether or not YOU agree.
That's what I've been asking. Explain how CCC 841 says anything other that what it plainly says.... how can this:
"...together with us they adore the one, merciful God"
mean anything other than "together with Catholics Muslims adore the one merciful God."? English is english. Us and They mean exactly what they point to.
I won't ask you again because you refuse to answer. Personally, if I were a Catholic and this question were put to me, and I was a hard-core Catholic, I would dodge, weave and avoid answering the question like the plague. If I answer "yes" I agree with the Catholic Church (cult)'s teaching on this, then I have admitted my apostasy and lost soul. If I answer "no", then I have basically forsworn the authority of the Catholic Church (cult) because I am disagreeing with what it teaches -- BUT, I would be assenting to faith in the one true living God and acknowledging that Christians do NOT worship, adore, or acknowledge the "god" of Islam.
So, again, and finally, take care and I pray the Lord will open your heart.
Hoss
Source?
Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
**Oh, my gosh. Look at the quote again: “They have no more wine.” NO MORE WINE.**
Oh, I believe that the wedding had run out of wine, but that the governor makes no comment about that. Meaning that MAYBE he hadn’t caught on to the shortfall yet. Jesus Christ is never late.
Do you deny that Jesus knew what he would do in advance, that he knew Mary would ask him to do something about it? Your position appears to paint Mary to be as big of a savior of the wedding as Jesus.
**The sequence doesn’t change the simple end result: THEY HAD NO WINE and that means THE MARRYING COUPLE HAD NO WINE.**
That means NO WINE for MARY, JESUS and his disciples, either. Deny that.
You’ve failed to prove Mary to be the post-life intercessor you claim her to be. What part of that do you not understand?
**It doesn’t matter - you’re wrong. Post hundreds of verses that DON’T SAY WHAT YOU CLAIM THEY DO and you’re still wrong. What part of that do you not understand?**
Challenging me is only going to make you look worse, on this subject, or any other scriptural debate, because your catholicism is ‘iron mixed with clay’ (portions of scripture mixed with man-made traditions).
There are events in the OT that are spiritually similar to the church age. The repopulating of Israel with people of other nations, with their man-made religious traditions, was thought to be corrected by having Hebrew priests instruct them in the ways of the God of Israel. The result was a religious mix:
“They feared the Lord, and served their own gods, after the manner of the nations whom they carried away from thence.” 2Kings 17:33.
Or a cracker.
CCC 841 — Agree... Yes or No?
Hoss
(BTW I’m not expecting an answer; just hoping for one - and to point out that this is the only question I have and the dance that is taking place).
So very true.
But be careful; I “rejected” the KJV, so I don’t know if I can “officially” agree with you or not.
Oh wait — I rejected the Catholic misinterpretation of it.
So, yeah - I agree!
:D
Hoss
See post 692 for my answer in the affirmative. Do you require a dictionary link or remedial English to comprehend what “affirmative” means ?
Still Demontfort. I did it wrong all of #18 reads:
18. God the Son came into her virginal womb as a new Adam into his earthly paradise, to take his delight there and produce hidden wonders of grace.
God-made-man found freedom in imprisoning himself in her womb. He displayed power in allowing himself to be borne by this young maiden. He found his glory and that of his Father in hiding his splendours from all creatures here below and revealing them only to Mary. He glorified his independence and his majesty in depending upon this loveable virgin in his conception, his birth, his presentation in the temple, and in the thirty years of his hidden life. Even at his death she had to be present so that he might be united with her in one sacrifice and be immolated with her consent to the eternal Father, just as formerly Isaac was offered in sacrifice by Abraham when he accepted the will of God. It was Mary who nursed him, fed him, cared for him, reared him, and sacrificed him for us.
The Holy Spirit could not leave such wonderful and inconceivable dependence of God unmentioned in the Gospel, though he concealed almost all the wonderful things that Wisdom Incarnate did during his hidden life in order to bring home to us its infinite value and glory. Jesus gave more glory to God his Father by submitting to his Mother for thirty years than he would have given him had he converted the whole world by working the greatest miracles. How highly then do we glorify God when to please him we submit ourselves to Mary, taking Jesus as our sole model.
Do you think you participate in "the Lord's Supper ?
It depends on what you mean by "participate". Catholics use words differently. I do break bread in remembrance of Christ's sacrifice yes.
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.