"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
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?