Posted on 07/23/2016 4:16:43 PM PDT by NRx
It's as if one were to issue a critique of Shakespeare called, "Othello the Prince of Denmark, Indiana, at the Asylum at Charenton-om-Avon," --- and refuse any correction because there were *some* elements of you the Bard there (quoted verbatim) (verbatim!)so this must be real, authentic Shakespeareanism.
So you jump into a thread about an entirely different topic (the shuttering of a heretical Episcopalian seminary--- nothing to do with devotion to Mary) and you do your routine Mary-baiting which we've read here so often we could write it ourselves.
It's beyond tedious.
I could ask a mormon what they believe and it won't change their theology. They can explain it all they want.
Wrong theology is wrong theology.
You cannot refute what I've noted regarding the rcc on mary. If you could you would have posted the corrections. But you can't because these are all beliefs of the rcc.
I've quoted from catholic sources on the issues of Mary as you know I have.
The catholic is raised up to believe these false teachings. They do not know any different. One who is not a catholic looking from the outside can see the error.
I compare roman catholic teaching on Mary to what is espoused in the New Testament and the catholic position is not there. There are no verses noting mary as our advocate, mediatrix or co-redemtrix and I think you know this.
To avoid the claim of "catholics worship mary", catholicism has to redefine what worship it.
When the rcc has to resort to word games such as this to justify their actions it is on sandy ground.
I'm sure you're aware there is a movement to establish a fifth marian dogma. It doesn't have full support to move forward just yet but I predict it will.
I find it interesting that the further we get from the New Testament period the more extreme these dogmas become.
The Church-approved apparitions of the Lady of All Nations in Amsterdam, Holland (1945-1959; Church approval, May 31, 2002) confirm that only with the proclamation of the Dogma of Mary Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate will Mary be able to intercede for “true peace for the world” (May 31, 1954 message). The Lady of All Nations also called all peoples to “petition the Holy Father” for this fifth Marian Dogma (May 31, 1954 message), and to pray daily the “Prayer of the Lady of All Nations” for the accomplishment of this Fifth Dogma.http://www.fifthmariandogma.com/
See, it all comes back to Mary for the catholic. However, the Bible teaches that we have the Holy Spirit already making intercession for us (Rms 8:26). We also have Jesus interceeding for us (Rms 8:34). One can only conclude that the catholic believes these intercessions are somehow insufficient and that Mary's intercession is somehow more effective as has been noted by catholic writers.
You might reference post #8. This is when the thread was “hi-jacked” as you put it. You will note it was not I who posted this.
Indeed. Natural procreation is also by definition “heterosexist” nowadays to these folks.
That was nothing about Mary; just your cue, I guess, to grab the bogus Mariolatry tape and run it through the infinite loop a couple more times.
However, none of that changes the false teachings of roman catholicism regarding Mary.
Like I and others haven't done this about a hundred times for over a decade right here on the FR Religion Forum, and a good sample of it addressed or pinged directly to you??
You can google almost any phrase in the above list with my username Mrs Don-o, and read what I've written on this very Religion Forum since 2004, and before that back to about 1998 when I was putting my own signed comments on my husband's account (don-o).
And most of it has links to more in-depth treatment and primary sources.
Do it. Google me.
And then read to understand, not to jump in with a half-baked refutation, when your own understanding of the vastness of Catholicism is a mile wide and a centimeter deep. /end rant mode/
Peace to you.
`
"Me senses"? That doesn't even mean anything. I'm through. I'm going out to put some 10-10-5 on my sweet corn.
My daughter (who has a beautiful voice) was invited as a soloist at our local ECUSA parish, so I went to hear her.
I haven’t been in an ECUSA service in twenty years (I left because of the heresy already present 20 years ago) - but still I was shocked at the blatant heresy and political pronouncements. This particular service was all about the Orlando shootings being the fault of evil homophobic Christians and public prayers to seize everyone’s guns.
Incredible. Never again in that synagogue of Satan.
Because Revelation 12 is not about Mary. It is about Israel and Christ. Mary is not the mother of all believers. Again, catholicism assigns something to Mary not accorded by Scripture.
you don't grasp the variations of devotional genres through the centuries;
I grasp when the rcc approves of various writings as being free from error that have been written through the centuries. If they are free from error it strongly suggests it is catholic doctrine.
you ignore archaeological evidence (inscibed over the bones of martyrs in the catacomb walls, lovingly embellishing ancient sites like the House Church at Dura Europos) showing devotion to Mary from the earliest centuries of Chrstianity;
I googled the House Church and find nothing to support the catholic claim this shows Mary. The scholars are in doubt as to exactly who this depicts. http://www.catholictranscript.org/news/news/local-news/4470-yale-gallery-may-hold-oldest-image-of-mary.html
If, as the article suggests, this is Mary at a well when the angel appears it is appealing to the Protoevangelium of James.
However, this would contradict Luke's narrative of 1:28 (NASB), "and coming in, he said to her, Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you." which suggests the meeting happened inside. Not at a well. And you complain I don't "have a sense of context"!
you're completely in the dark about the difference between a dogma, a speculation and a theologoumenon (a mere theological opinion);
I know this. The rcc has not refuted this writing nor cited it as error. IIRC, various popes have embraced it.
In the Glories of Mary by Alphonsus de Liguor, a catholic bishop, (page 129) we have this:
Hence St. Ephrem says: Thou art the only advocate of sinners, and of those who are deprived of every help; and he thus salutes her: Hail! refuge and retreat of sinners, to whom alone they can flee with confidence.
As noted earlier this is a contradiction of scripture to which you cannot offer rebuttal as the popes have embraced this doctrine.
Well, mrs d...it's been fun as always.
I'm off the read about the follies of the dnc. Good luck with the corn. btw....love cream corn and fresh field peas!
Rather than try to defend such a rash assertion, I think it would be better to acknowledge that many Biblical prophecies and images, and especially in Revelation, are polysemous. In Revelation 12, the Great Sign of the Mother in the sky, is referring the Mary the Mother of the Messiah (primary meaning, since her motherhood, and the identity of her newborn Infant as Messiah, are both clearly referenced)) AND Israel/Daughter Zion, AND the Church founded by Christ (secondary or derivative, dependent upon the primary.) These three meanings frequently overlap, and never more profoundly than here at Rev. 12.
"Free of error" in this case --- the mystical writings --- means only that the parts that touch on doctrine, can be interpreted in a sound and orthodox way, RARELY as literal doctrinal formula (VERY RARE in mystical writings!)--- or as an illustration by analogy, or by allegory, or by imagery, or by way of a conditional truth (e.g. IF 'this' happens, then 'that' will happen.)
There are some outright errors in the writings of some mystics. These are not endorsed by the Church. Even if the mystic in question is a canonized saint, that does not mean all their writings are perfect in all respects! Some of them are too ambiguous to yield a judgment of their accuracy. (Ambiguity is a characteristic of any Bible passages too, as we have seen.
(E.g. how many people were at the foot of the Cross?)
(E.g. "And what the LORD doth require of thee: Only to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God." What does "only" mean in this passage? You don't have to believe in Christ?")
E.g. "See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24) What???)
"Free of error" does not mean that that it is part of the Deposit of Faith, comprising the truths that were handed on to us by he Apostles. No "new truths" of this sort have emerged "de novo," nor could they emerge, after the Apostolic Age, which closed at about the end of the First Century AD.
The picture is of a woman at a well. Sort of off toward the corner there is a raised and very faded figure of (probably)_ an angel ---"probably" an angel, since the figure is raised as if in mid-air; and there's a faded line showing something like starburst occurring in or on the woman.
The art experts say it *could* be the Samaritan woman at the well, but not likely, since such pictures usually center on Christ talking to her, which is not shown at all.
Since the faded figure is probably an angel, and since something is happening within the woman (starburst) another view --- and this is only a point of view --- is that it is the Annunciation, the angel is Gabriel, and the woman is Mary showing he (symbolically) conceiving Christ within her.
Scripture says the angel came "in" to speak to Mary, while some interpret to mean she must have been inside her house. Others translate this is "came INTO her presence." Of the 24 variant translations listed at Bible Hub, they are about equally divided between coming "in" and not mentioning "in" at all.
So I don't think it can be determined whether this passage is saying the angel came into her house or just into her presence. Not only that, bu Jewish law considers your courtyard to be part of your house --- this is important for hakachic regulations which say you can take only so many steps outside of your "house" on the Sabbath. So if Mary had a well in her courtyard, she would still be considered (by Jewish law) to be in her house, and the angel could come in to her (at the well) without implying that the well was located in the middle of her living-room :o) ..
All this is secondary. Whether or not Mary was portrayed on the mural at Dura Europos, she was certainly addressed as well as pictured on the underground tufa walls at, e.g. the Catacomb of Priscilla in Rome. Being pictured is a form of dulia-- simple honor, neither more nor less.
This WAS going to be a short kite!
or As when a suit, courting his beloved, says "You are my ONLY love," he manifestly does not mean that he doesn't love his father and mother, or that he doesn't love God. He's just trying to express an exalted view of this beloved woman. No reasonable person would think otherwise.
Similarly, no Christian--- and no scholar, looking over the whole corpus of Ephrem's work --- could reasonably conclude that Ephrem thought Mary was the literal, sole advocate of sinners. That would take him clear out of Christianity; whereas his poetic work is, in fact, highly Christocentric.
I myself am, in fact, an advocate for sinners. I pray for sinners daily. And this is the ONLY way that Mary, as a human persona d as a disciple of Christ, can "advocate" for sinners: by commending them to Christ.
Back to the beans. Adieu.
I’m guessing that this “church” never mentioned the fact that the shooter was a bisexual Muslim Democratic pro-Hillary supporter.
To begin with...the mere fact he has written an entire book devoted to the "glories of Mary" is mind-boggling in itself.
The quotes in the book, and there are more than one, lend support to my position that these writers were placing their hope and trust in Mary.
St. John of Da mascus expresses the same thing when, address ing the blessed Virgin, he says to her: Oh Lady, in thee I have placed all my hope, and with firm confidence I look to thee for my salvation,
f St. Thomas says that Mary is all the hope of our salvation.
J St. Ephrem explains: Oh most holy Virgin, receive us under thy protection, if thou wilt see us saved, since we have no other hope of being saved but through thee.
Paul and John would have recoiled at such statements. I find it telling that in all of their writings no such "devotion" or reliance was ever accorded to Mary as there are in more than one roman catholic writing.
To your point that the "mystics" sometimes made errors.
This new and improved translation of "The Glories of Mary, " having been duly examined, is hereby approved of.
John, Archbishop of New York NY, Jan 21st 1852
This illustrates the problem with roman catholicism's reliance upon tradition. When the writer says something catholics like he's a great guy and accepted. When the same writer's works are really examined and contradictory positions to the Bible are espoused the catholic retreats to "it's not doctrine" or they made errors.
However, in this case the Archbishop of NY approved this book and it's contents and message. This would tell me he has found no doctrinal issues with the book. Being an Archbishop I would imagine he had a pretty good grip on roman catholic beliefs.
Catholics cannot have it both ways.
"To Christ Through Mary" would be the overriding theme, and it's a legitimate one. Why? Bcause we obviously approach Christ through His Incarnation, and His Incarnation is through Mary. Just as you could legitimately say,
Every Marian doctrine or devotion is about what God does ("The Almighty has done great things for me.")
None of it presupposes Mary as in independent actor, a Lone Ranger(ess).
Keep this in mind, my FRiend, and I am confident your understanding will increase and your misunderstandings will be overcome.
None of it presupposes Mary as in independent actor, a Lone Ranger(ess).
Disagree.
There are catholic writings that tell us if we can't get what we want from Christ we can go to mary to get it. I don't have those right now but can provide for you.
We also have the apparitions telling the locals to build a temple in "her" honor. The Mary of the Bible would never say that nor would Paul or Peter or John, etc.
I see you have no rebuttal regarding the Glories of Mary.
btw...how's the corn doing? I bet the heat is not a help for it.
I see the problem, right there.
Bingo
But let me relate how, again, you're baying down the wrong track when you complain that you see lots of "To Christ Through Mary" in Catholicism, but you don't see myriads of writings about "To Christ Through the Jewish People" or "...Through the Church" or "...Through the Bible."
First of all, there ARE myriads of books of this sort. The fact that you haven't seen them shows how incomplete your knowledge really is. (Mine, too. For one thing, my mental capacity is not as --- capacious --- as I would wish; plus Catholicism is so vast, it's like a Universe in itself.) But trust me, there are tons of writings, sermons, and teachings on the Jewish People, the Church, and the Bible was avenues to Jesus.
And get this: Mary in a sense personally spans it all.
I mean that she is a kind of personification of the Jewish People chosen, bringing birth to everything that was foretold to the virtuous foremothers like Sarah, Hannah, Ruth, the patriarchs and kings and all the prophets
Mary was the Church's first embodiment, because she was the first to know Christ, the first to believe, the only one to accompany Him all the way from His conception in her womb to His repose in the tomb, crowned by Easter and Pentecost. Christ lived in her intimately, as He now lives in the whole Church; and she, first disciple, lived in Christ.
And Mary comprises in a mystical way, the whole Bible, inasmuch as the Bible is all about Christ --- in anticipation, in event and in consequence --- and she, Mary, was there for it all: anticipation, event, and consequence.
So to see Mary as "apart from" or "in competition with" the Jewish People, the Church, or the Bible, is to be blind to the kaleidoscopic and deeply reiterative nature of this whole story of Salvation, in which Our Lord relates ALL these things to Himself, and infuses them with Himself.
He is the potter, We are the clay.
And what He does with clay!!
`
So right now it's looking good, despite the hell-spell. But my old-lady muscles are really beginning to ache from all the extras Ive had to do to ensure its survival.
We could sure take a break from these 96 degree daytime highs. Even 80 would feel good.
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.