Posted on 04/04/2015 1:59:27 PM PDT by Steelfish
our own opinion in this means little to nothing.
It is tainted for reason that the entire series of comments from you to myself have been all about trying to gin up accusations aimed at at my own self, rather than primarily about subject matter.
I identified it as troll tactic and you are proving that original estimation correct.
Now take a hike.
Don't comment to me on this thread primarily if not entirely about MYSELF any longer.
You pinged me back to this thread in post in 1014.
"Your comments...are mutually exclusive. One simply cannot give birth from realm of spirit -- unless they are a spirit themselves, and have god-like powers of being able to reproduce as it were, in realms of spirit."
Oh, buckets-o'-bricks! (Smacking my forehead.) Now I see where some of our mutual incomprehension is coming from. Catholics do not believe that Mary is or ever was giving birth or reproducing "from realm of spirit", whatever that means. The only Person she ever gave birth to, was Jesus Christ Our Lord, and since then she has not given birth to bodies or souls or any manner of thing. Jeepers.
And now I see why you're popping in these cryptic references to Kolob: you think what Catholics are adopting Mormon doctrine, with some Heavenly Mother making spirit babies that later get put into bodies and become human. No. No-no-no. Catholics do not believe in the pre-existence of souls, but, on the contrary, that God creates each soul individually and ex-nihilo at the time of each person’s conception. No fabulously multiparous Queen Bee or Spirit Mother!!
”Then there is the thing about prayers to departed saints being (near entirely?) absent from historical records prior to near the 4th century. “
You are mistaken about this. It started way, way before then. Offerings for the dead were an accepted part of Jewish Temple practice: the Jews of late antiquity prayed for the purification of the souls of the departed in the Temple, and were prayed for by departed saints, such as the Prophet Samuel (2 Maccabees). While you do not accept this as Scripture, it is at least a clear historic documentation of the Jews interceding for the purification of their departed ones, and relying in turn on the intercession of the prophets.
The early Church retained this from our Jewish heritage, and the post-Temple Jews themselves, according to the Talmud and the Zohar, have also retained it in some form. Jewish people petition the souls of venerable rabbis and others of the righteous departed, to pray on their behalf.
In Christianity, prayer for the dead is in evidence since at least the 100’s AD, proven not by documents but by carved and painted tomb inscriptions in the catacombs. Celebration of the Eucharist for the dead--- also in the catacombs --- can be traced back archaeologically to at least the 200’s. The same with the departed saints, especially martyrs of the periodic persecutions, to whom they prayed, “Intercede for us that we may follow in your footsteps.”
"Meanwhile, which Roman Catholic is it that has moderator privileges..."
None that I have heard of. But if you find out, be sure to let me know :o)
Ears perked,
Mrs. Don-o
Thanks. I have wondered about that. Why pray to anyone but Jesus? After all, He is the answer.
bumP
They were never born again Christians in the first place. Pretenders. People who follow them just want to feel good. I wonder if any of them have really heard the Bible taught. They are fake just like the current pope seems to be. I do not understand how anyone can follow them. Jesus is the only answer.
The reference also draws our attention to Zion (Daughter Zion), Daughter Jerusalem, Israel, the Church, Lady Ecclesia, etc. etc.
That's the way Biblical images and types work. They are multivalent. These various meanings are simultaneous; they are not identical, but they rhyme.
With this typical multivalence in mind, we can see that Jesus IS the son of Mary, the son of Daughter Jerusalem, the Son of Zion; as well, the son of Bathsheba and David, the son of Adam and Eve. That is because he is a true member of the human race, and has a true lineage according to the flesh, even though his human nature is joined to His divine nature, and He is the Son of God.
It's beautiful, isn't it?
Until we get to the part that makes Mary into be "Queen of Heaven".
That's when things change from "grandest examples of the epic coherence and continuity of Sacred Scripture from beginning to end" to representing significant breech instead.
I do know well enough about how the 'Mary is Queen' ideas arose within the Church, for one can track the developments easily enough.
I also know how ranking of "king" came about in Israel, the Lord having spoken through his prophets then and there when the people clamored for being ruled over by earthly king ---- that they were making serious mistake.
So much for grand coherence when one looks to Davidic kingdom queen consort concepts and terminology which arose among men --- kings mothers being made Queen as it were in part because the earthly kings would have so many wives it would have been awkward, and led to there being no end to Court intrigues...
Yet the Ancient of Days...in the person of the Son will have but one bride.
One bride whom Mary herself would be (will be) subsumed within, herself taking her own rightful & greatly honored place within body of the Bride.
Again;
Archetypes, correct?
Yet one single woman amid those becomes Spiritual Mother to them all?
Woops. there's that coherence thing...not entirely so unbroken (or else interrupted, just ever so slightly corrupted) when instead of to the One true El Shaddai men begin to pray to one whom was herself, in her own origin, a human being.
Jesus, yes it is true that He is "member of the human race" as you put it, yet He also returned back to where He was before -- His Father's Kingdom. His Father never died...save for in the person of the Son.
His origins -- are beyond merely created realms which man by the grace of God is allowed to inhabit.
Mary cannot therefor be Queen consort to the Father, despite hopes to justify her as so for reason she was the son's earthly mother.
The Ancient of Days has no brides save for the Bride of His Son, that Son who rose from a tomb defeating & taking away the curse.
As you had said previously, although not having there strictly identified the women as being included among these archetypes, is still that;
Doesn't that work better, be more inclusively encompassing of the Creator's relationship with man whom He made?
Sounds good to me. It’s a both-and.
And Mother of the Messiah!
No, it was God who promised to preserve His word for ALL generations. Not that there would be some gap until the Mormons started up. Also, the Old Testement scriptures were entrusted to the Jews, not the Catholics.
>>So you reject organized religion, but yet you use the list of scriptures approved by organized religion religion, is that right?<<
No, I don't. I use the scriptures the Jews held as scriptures and what the apostles wrote. The Catholics, Mormons, and Muslims add to those.
>>So, if you believe God was working through them, how can you say God wasn't working through them when they organized their church?<<
God worked through Judas, Harrod, and Balaam's donkey also. Do you always follow someone who gets just one thing right?
"Until we get to the part that makes Mary into be "Queen of Heaven”…That's when things change from "grandest examples of the epic coherence and continuity of Sacred Scripture from beginning to end" to representing significant breech instead….the people clamored for being ruled over by earthly king ---- that they were making serious mistake.”
There are a couple of important things to keep in mind about Mary’s Queenship.
”So much for grand coherence when one looks to Davidic kingdom queen consort concepts and terminology which arose among men --- kings mothers being made Queen as it were in part because the earthly kings would have so many wives it would have been awkward, and led to there being no end to Court intrigues..”
Historically that’s true, as far as I know. That doesn’t detract from the “Grand coherence” I mentioned, because every detail of an archetype is not the same. For instance, David and Solomon are both types of Christ, but they were sinners while He was sinless; and they were polygamous while He was celibate; they lived in palaces while He was born in a stable and during His public ministry “had nowhere to lay His head”, etc.
The “coherence” is found, not in the match-up of every single detail (as you expect in an allegory) but in their points of contact with the Big Picture of the salvation of the world. They are types, but they are not doppelgangers.
”Yet the Ancient of Days...in the person of the Son will have but one bride….One bride whom Mary herself would be (will be) subsumed within, herself taking her own rightful & greatly honored place within body of the Bride.”True, Christ is the Head of His Body, which is also His Bride the Church. Mary has her greatly honored place with it. (These figures--- Body and Bride ---- aren’t quite identical, but they’re both important and both Biblical.)
Yet she is also the Mother of the believers, who are called her offspring (Rev 12:17). Mary is like the “neck” of the Body of Christ (her "greatly honored place," conceptually) because she is the one genetic, bodily connection Christ has with the People of Israel, with the line of David, and with the human race.
”Again… Zion (Daughter Zion), Daughter Jerusalem, Israel, the Church, Lady Ecclesia, etc. etc…. Archetypes, correct? Yet one single woman amid those becomes Spiritual Mother to them all?”Yes, if, as Scripture says, they “keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus.” This would not exclude Old Testament figures, since in their faith, their obedience, and their prophecy they are seen as bearing witness to Jesus. Cf. Moses and Elijah on Mount Tabor, representing the Law and the Prophets.
”Woops. there's that coherence thing...not entirely so unbroken (or else interrupted, just ever so slightly corrupted) when instead of to the One true El Shaddai men begin to pray to one whom was herself, in her own origin, a human being.”Prayer does not equal worship. It equals communion. Jesus Himself spoke to people who had gone on before (Moses and Elijah) but He did not worship them. And speaking of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, He said they are not dead, since “the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is not a God of the dead, but of the living.”
We are forbidden to adore anybody but God; however we are in constant communication ---communion --- with all the Body of Christ. That’s what the Body of Christ is all about: we are the cells, tissues, organs, systems, limbs and senses of Christ, all in constant, necessary, living contact with each other, and sharing mutually in spiritual goods. There is a name for this: the Communion of Saints.
That is why contact with Saints is not only possible, because essential: “the eye can’t say to the hand, “I don’t need you,” nor can the head say to the feet, “I don’t need you.”(1 Cor 12:21)
”Jesus, yes it is true that He is "member of the human race" as you put it, yet He also returned back to where He was before -- His Father's Kingdom. His Father never died...save for in the person of the Son. His origins -- are beyond merely created realms which man by the grace of God is allowed to inhabit.”
Yes, truly. He returned to where He was before, and he returned in His glorious, resurrected, transfigured body. He is still a member of the human race, and will be for all eternity, just as He is still God, and will be for all eternity. His human flesh, human nature, will never cease to exist, and His divinity is from everlasting to everlasting.
”Mary cannot therefor be Queen consort to the Father, despite hopes to justify her as so for reason she was the son's earthly mother.”True. I have never heard of Mary ---nor, for that matter, Zion (Daughter Zion), Daughter Jerusalem, Israel, the Church, Lady Ecclesia, etc. --- referred to a consorts of the Father. ???
There are other OT queenly archetypes: for instance, Psalms 45:9-17
Daughters of kings are your lovely wives;
a princess arrayed in Ophir’s gold
comes to stand at your right hand.
Listen, my daughter, and understand;
pay me careful heed.
Forget your people and your father’s house,
that the king might desire your beauty.
He is your lord;
honor him, daughter of Tyre.
Then the richest of the people
will seek your favor with gifts.
All glorious is the king’s daughter as she enters,
her raiment threaded with gold;
In embroidered apparel she is led to the king.
The maids of her train are presented to the king.
They are led in with glad and joyous acclaim;
they enter the palace of the king.
The throne of your fathers your sons will have;
you shall make them princes through all the land.
This is certainly anagogical.
And where would you assume a Queen to be? The Biblically correct place would be at the king’s "right hand":
Psalm 45:9
daughters of kings are among Your ladies of honour; at Your right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir.
and...
1 Kings 2:19
So Bathsheba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adonijah. The king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne, and had a throne brought for the king’s mother, and she sat on his right.
The Biblical commandment says that we are to honor our father and our mother. Solomon demonstrated how a great King's mother is to be treated. Do you think that Jesus would fall short of the standards of His predecessors, or would show less honor to His own Mother?
It is belittling of Jesus to suppose that He would fulfill the commandments and courtesies less regally than His ancestor Solomon did.
Mary’s Queenship is utterly dependent upon Christ. I am absolutely confident that He will not slight her or treat her one iota less than was the custom of Solomon.
What? You think God failed? Perhaps you may be overlooking the fact that God didn't see it as His word so didn't preserve it? Not much faith in God there.
>>he words of God Himself that says that His word would not be found on the earth.<<
There we see the lack of knowledge of scripture that the Mormons and others have. You used Amos 8 as your example. But you neglect to include who God is talking to in that chapter.
Amos 8:2...Then the Lord said to me, “The time is ripe for my people Israel; I will spare them no longer.
Just as He warned the people of Israel as a whole have wondered the world over but have not found the word of the Lord as it applies to the Messiah. God keeps His promises and His warnings.
>>Without them there would be no Bible.<<
Wow! Your lack of faith in God is showing. Did not He say that if the apostles kept silent like the Pharisees wanted the very stones would cry out?
Luke 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
God has always and will always keep His word StormPrepper. He preserved the word He wanted preserved. It has been available to all generations just as He promised. The fact that some don't see it like the Israelites, Mormons, and others is only a consequence of their own rebelliousness as spoken of in John 12.
Yet Mary is said to be Mother. Whatever that means.
Though I will grant that it is not intended by the RCC in the various ways of which "Mary" is spoken of to result in anything that could be directly comparable to Mormon ways of theologically speaking of how Creation is ordered. The Hieing to Kolob thing was just a joke.
Please.
If that truly was "where some of our mutual incomprehension is coming from." ...then I don't think smacking anyone's forehead is going to result in anything other than even yet more senselessness.
Meanwhile --- according to Scripture, and I presume after ourselves being born again/born from above (John 3:5) and ourselves being then later, as Paul writes in the letter to the Romans, chpt 8;
15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.”
have by way of that adoption real and actual (not merely figurative, or "conceptual") relationship to God the Father.
Jesus as attributed to having said in John 14 beginning with verse 16
And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.19 “A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also. 20 At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. 21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.”
Yet; Now comes "Mary" who [allegedly] reigns with a mother's solicitude over the entire world hailed as our Mother, Our heavenly Mother, as Holy Queen, Queen Of Heaven, Queen of Heaven and earth...whom from popes on down we are browbeaten to direct our prayers towards, Mary being the Queen of the same heaven
...compared to(?) or at least merely? in conjunction with;
We were explicitly directed by none less than the Only Begotten Son --- to direct our prayers towards --- God the Father.
If there were to be another other than God the Father in heavenly places that descendants of Adam should best direct prayers to, or if there were to be yet another whom would eventually make it to those heavenly places, and then be worthy of our adulation & prayer ---- would He have not provided directions to all that this instruction of His was to be subject to later additional amendment?
Judging from Catholic, Marionist sources in general, among many considerations, it seems to mean that the "Mary" of their imaginations is presented as interacting from heavenly place (spirit realm) with human beings whom are still alive upon earth, herself doing so in actual, not merely conceptual spiritual ways.
PiusXII, ON PROCLAIMING THE QUEENSHIP OF MARY OCTOBER 11, 1954 presiding as pope --- was he speaking merely figuratively, conceptually, or anything other than speaking LITERALLY of Mary -- of her from heaven above (where we all need be born of/from, hint-hint) herself described to be Our Lady, Mother (of all) reigning as Queen, etc.?;
Whoever, therefore, reverences the Queen of heaven and earth -- and let no one consider himself exempt from this tribute of a grateful and loving soul -- let him invoke the most effective of Queens, the Mediatrix of peace; let him respect and preserve peace, which is not wickedness unpunished nor freedom without restraint, but a well-ordered harmony under the rule of the will of God; to its safeguarding and growth the gentle urgings and commands of the Virgin Mary impel us.http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12CAELI.HTM AD CAELI REGINAM ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII ON PROCLAIMING THE QUEENSHIP OF MARY OCTOBER 11, 1954 [emphasis and underlining added]
The real (no pun intended) problem with sort of thing...is that the above attributes to "Mary" what would be better identified & then attributed to be the workings of the Holy Spirit.
This is a serious issue.
Consider this;
Is one hearing from the Lord...gentle urgings and commands which I can testify to having myself received...or is this the spirit "Mary" as Spiritual Mother sending her own love & 'sacred heart' (as her's is oft referred to)?
Wait, i know the answer to that one, pick me, teacher, pick me! The answer generally speaking is that; the spirit (of the Lord) is said to flow through her, passing from God above through herself to all the world -- or at least those whom would be obedient to God, whom love Him. right? ...something like that, conceptually speaking, anyway...
Of course she gave physical birth to the Incarnate Christ, herself in doing so being earthly parent to the earthly manifestation of His taking on the literal, actual form of a man --- becoming a man, in the flesh. I was not for one single second suggested she is portrayed as giving birth to the physical bodies of those whom are called to the Lord. Yet if she does not in some sense 'give birth' to us as the Father does when He sends the Holy Spirit to dwell within us, then what kind of 'Mother' could she be? One merely conceptually speaking?
Yet for the sake of the role which Mary did fulfill in giving birth to the Incarnate Christ she later became from On High even --- Mediatrix of --- grace, perhaps "all graces"(?) mediatrix of peace, ect.?
Where was Mary when Abraham was? That may sound like strange wording but I was following the way Jesus said 'before Abraham was, I am'.
Introduction of Mary as being allegedly Queen of heaven (and earth, in some versions of Title) taking cues from the book of Revelation that Mary (alone as it were) be still continuing archetype and living reigning spiritual personification of the Daughter Of Israel figure, (which Mary can well enough be associated with) does appear to have made her to be that Christian Spirit Mother figure witnessed in an unfolding vision by (we may assume) the Apostle John, whom was writer of the book of Revelation.
Yet when I used the term Spirit Mother your hair caught on fire?
In John 3 we are told that we must be born of the spirit/born from above...or we cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Yet Roman Catholicism tells that all must accept and look to Mary as Our Lady, Mother, Queen of Heaven, Queen of heaven and earth.
Are you telling me that it is all simply poetic?
No, I don't think quote-unquote "Catholics are adopting Mormon doctrine" as in having it be that "souls" or spirit children are born on remote planets, to then be sent to earth to be born (again?) as human beings upon earth, to then learn and be good enough (doing all that they can do, mind you) to then, by some dint of their own righteousness be "exalted" into becoming gods after which they then go on to live ever more, themselves begetting yet more 'spirit children' and all the rest of that sort of mormonic hoo-ha.
Yourself saying to me "you think that Catholics are adopting Mormon doctrine" is not really "mutual incomprehension", Mrs. Don-O, for I was most certainly was not going that far. For considerations on your own part that I was automatically importing all of that, on the basis of my having made a little joke (which I had labeled then as being a joke) and it's hei-di-hei-ho and away we go off we went to yet another sidebar sort of thing...wherein I was made to look hopelessly misinformed?
Perhaps I wasn't making myself clear. Yet it seems to me that when I am most clear ---- uh, that part is ignored until I then again repeat it in yet another way, which then loses the context I was striving for the information from either side of things to be evaluated, and compared within.
Previously on this thread in your comment from #586 this thread, speaking of Roman Catholics, but also and especially the "Uniate" churches of the Chaldeans, Melkites, Maronite, the Orthodox, the non-Byzantine churches of the East and yet a few others, you had said;
you'll find all of them have Sacred Liturgy and Sacraments; all of them venerate, and invoke the intercessory prayers of Mary and of the Saints who have gone on before us; all of them trace back to the Apostolic period when the Epistles and Gospels were being written, and they were learning from the very lips of the Apostles.To which I had originally replied incorporating particular html elements for emphasis;
Somewhat repeating myself you've here quoted me as saying (I'm not sure from which comment)
The element which I raised objection to most particularly was your having said "...from the very lips of the Apostles" in conjunction with; not only what there may be in way of acceptable aspects of praying for those whom in Jewish practice were considered to be in Sheol, ie., that God would not forget them, while on the other hand I do object to what are for the greater extent mere assertions there are any actual KOSHER sources for a consideration that the dead would be prayed TO, and asked for their own intercession on behalf of the living.
That bolded portion of the overall proceedings is entirely absent from Scripture, possibly(?) other than one snippet which you alluded to is somewhere in 2 Maccabees although you did not indicate precisely what chapter what you were alluding to
One big problem with needing cite 2 Maccabees, and rely alone on that as positive [ahem] scripture source is that it alone as "scripture" in this, when otherwise in the Scripture, both OT and NT, if there be a doctrine or consideration which is understood to have been established rightfully, then there is always form of confirmation, often further established in multitudinous ways.
This is not so in regards to prayers which present appeal to the dead, for their own intercession rather than prayers be offered FOR the dead. (please excuse all the emphasizing, yet I can't seem to stress this point enough).
There are significant difference between the two forms prayers, albeit they did later become bundled up as one in liturgy itself, beginning in the 4th century, but not found there before. Of course, I'll admit that it is extremely difficult to find much in the way of litugical prayer in the forms which they would have existed in even as far back as the 4th, and all but impossible to find in extant form from earlier. Yet there is record of there having been a change from praying "about" or else for those whom had departed, and praying to those same for their own prayer and intercession.
If this aspect of praying TO those who had passed on had been "on the lips of the Apostles" and/or also was as common and regular enough form of Jewish religious considerations as you say it is then surely there would be much better evidence to establish that, rather than beginning with sketchy (artwork), and one murky, obscure mention from less-than kosher pretender-to-be-"scripture", which there is evidence was soundly enough rejected by the Jewish religious authorities prior to Christ. The converging lines of evidence from multiple sources indicate that it have been something of a development rather than a teaching of the Apostles.
You said, and as I've seen you make claim for previously;
Prayers for and concerning those whom had lived & died, along with fond remembrances expressed for those, are not equivalent to prayers being made towards these same in request of the further prayers of those whom have deceased -- and be in Sheol.
You copy/pasted that from elsewhere, correct? There seems to quite a lot of that, a file of sorts? Ok, nevermind that, but I'm getting worn from having to examine and re-examine, just to find that once an issue can be drilled down into IT IS NEVER QUITE AS ADVERTISED. (imagine my other than surprise emotion)
To whom they prayed...and you are quoting that those prayers included requests for the intercession of the departed? Like, how much of that sort of thing is there anyway? LET's SEE IT HERE or at least provide some kind of source for your barrages of assertions!
Two things. First -- show us those prayers [source please, and something scholarly instead of marionist promotional materials], along with just how those were reliably dated back to "at least the '200's. How much "interpretation" or else slight and subtle changing or wording could have gone on in this? AND THEN --- those type of prayers if they truly existed as allegedly worded ---- are not necessarily equivalent to as 'taught by Christ and the Apostles' sort of thing which it would need to be in order for the claim, or allusion that it were so, to be true. There were a lot of ways of thinking within the early church which were not kosher at all.
THen -- tell me whatever happened to application for
Must that be abandoned when it comes to discerning the meanings and weight(s) of such things as ancient murals in catacombs which may (or may not) have included request for the intercessory prayers of the deceased? Has it been it been ruled out that the intercessory portion was not being made by the living on behalf of the dead?
Or else the requests directed to God, in request for His own intercession for the dead?
Once past those types of possibilities, then should a single solitary mural (artwork) alleged to be showing Mary standing between Peter and Paul establish her as spiritual mother whom we should pray to?
How reliable would that sort of process be? If such a process were to be reliable, then why not pray to such as St. Paul for him to direct us all in theology? St. Anthony, i lost my car keys... would you help me please?
Surely the Lord would continue to funnel through Paul many of the deeper things of the Word --- just as it is seemingly alleged that the Lord continues to utilize the person of Mary along lines of what her earthly function was.
Yet the mural depiction could as well be interpreted to signify, yes; the Church, yet also the Risen Christ & then Ascended back to where He was once before Christ (by His absence from the scene), along with evidence of his having come to the earth in form of a man, born by the Virgin Mary ---- who are flanked by witnesses whom can attest to the details and particulars.
In that way the 'authority' of the Church to preach what is depicted is shown. It is not depicting 'authority' for anyone to come along later and change the Hebrew sense of God the Father, El Shaddai, into now, after the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ, to need or have a created being as His "wife" so to speak, in heaven. Yet for reason that Mary conceived by the Holy spirit, those whom were less than careful with their own theological ponderings and pronouncements titled Mary Spouse of the Holy Spirit http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4270
who is the same guy, who while able to come up with only one example of "Mary" being allegedly depicted as "mother of the church" from a collection of others which otherwise in the main seem always to regularly depict Mary with Christ as infant, the lack of that doesn't seem to slow Miraville from his careful painstaking massaging of whatever scrap of evidence can be found in support of his Marionist quest;
"If our Holy Father were to define Mary’s Spiritual Motherhood, it would allow her the fullest possible exercise of her motherly roles on our behalf. Only when human free will consents to Mary’s titles, can her function as “Spiritual Mother” be fully activated.""Mary’s fiat “freed the Father, in the order of human freedom, to bring us our Redeemer. Now Mary awaits our fiat, in the person and office of the Holy Father, in the order of human freedom, to bring inestimable grace to the world, including the graces necessary for world peace."
Do you SEE it YET?
Bow down and worship. (but it's all for a good cause, so it's ok to eat of this fruit -- you will not surely die...) Then, once this is done --- all that there is as far as the eye can see will be delivered to God the Father --- if everyone on earth would just 'Hail Mary' Hosanna Mary to the Highest.
Ok, one more thing. (i was wrong, more than two extra mission impossibles-if you chose-to-accept-them)
When or if you had time, or else cared to consider how art and poetry has upon occasion been something of a driver of theological considerations review if you would (the choice entirely up to you)
and then tell me if there is not evidence of Marion devotional sort of things having been more of a source for much Marionist theology which has found it's way to now deeply imbedded within Roman Catholicism?
HMMMmmm...
Mormonism uses the KJV of the bible.
A book that has been superceded by the Mormon translated Inspired Version; which they do NOT use.
You remind me of a most excellent bird dog ... nothing gets past that nose for hypocrisy.
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.