Venezuelan Bishops Pray to Virgin Mary to Free the Country from the ‘Claws of Communism’

Breitbart ^ | 2 Aug 2017 | Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D.

[Mark17]

I’m not Catholic. I limit my prayers to Jesus and God. I guess we have to agree to disagree.

Good point bro. I am an ex Catholic, now a born again Christian. I have to agree with you. 😀😆😄😂😁

[Mark17]

The Roman Catholic simply will not see the evidence even though it's right in front of them.

I have to agree. When I was a Roman Catholic, I had all the evidence right in front of me, and didn't see it either. It's called spiritual blindness. I was an un spiritual person. I could not understand spiritual truth. Later, I did, of course. That is why I am an ex Catholic. 😀😆😄

[Resettozero]

There's NOTHING else in Scripture at all that alludes to her.

Perhaps that statement will encourage a FRoman Catholic to deeply search the Scriptures to disprove you -- as long as those "Scriptures" mean the Holy Bible which speaks of Jesus, the Word of God, and not Ishtar or some other such presumed deity.

Nice to see a few hardy Christians still dare to post on the FR RF.

[Elsie]

Calvinasaurusism at it’s greatest display!

[daniel1212]

The commission unanimously declared that it was not opportune, voting 23-0 against the proposed dogma.[23][24] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix

When asked in an interview in 2000 whether the Church would go along with the desire to solemnly define Mary as Co-redemptrix, then-Cardinal Ratzinger responded that “the response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is, broadly, that what is signified by this is already better expressed in other titles of Mary, while the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings” (53).

He went on to say that, “Everything comes from Him [Christ], as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything she is through Him. The word “Co-redemptrix” would obscure this origin. A correct intention being expressed in the wrong way. “For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language” (God and the world: believing and living in our time, by Pope Benedict XVI, Peter Seewald, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2000, p. 306 ;

Unlike some other Catholic distinctives, here "the Fathers" concur with Scripture that the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of it. But if Ratzinger would simply apply to "the Fathers" the standard that the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture" then he would have to exclude so much more in Catholicism, and not only as regards superlatives and attributes ascribed to Mary.

But the error of Catholicism is that of exalting herself over Scripture, and selectively understanding the latter by what the so-called "church fathers" (they were not of the NT church), and (in the face of opposition from heretics) making tradition equal and interpretive of Scripture, versus judging them by what was written, as the noble Bereans did to the preaching of very apostles.

And thus the progressive accretion of traditions of men were perpetuated as uninspired men adopted them as beliefs, from praying to created beings in Heaven to the psychological promotion of Mary, etc. Yet since Catholicism retained salvific Truths, then souls of poor and contrite hearts could actually find a day of salvation by faith in the risen Lord Jesus to save them on His account, a damned destitute sinners, and follow Him to some degree.

[Elsie]

Well, at least it is correct in saying it was INVENTED!

[Elsie]

It appears that having lots of Grace like Mary means there must have been lots of sin!

Oops!

[ealgeone]

Mrs. D. I've shown you where the Greek you post from Keating, or wherever you copied this from,,and it's disingenuous to not give the website reference, is incorrect.

It's disappointing you'd continue to repeat the same error filled information. In Romam Catholic terms me thinks you've committed a mortal sin.

[ealgeone]

YES, SIR!!!’

[unread]

"Pope Francis is wrong about that."

I don't know...an awful lot of catholics vote democratic...something as commie..

[daniel1212]

We are in Christ. He -- HE ---has made us members of His mystical body. HE --- our Lord and God --- has made us sharers in the divine nature. HE --- Christ our Savior --- has made us part of His life, death, and resurrection, His saving acts, because we offer our lives in union with Him. Thus everything we can say of Christ, as sole, unique, sui generis, we can say of ourselves, as members of Hus Body. We can say with St. Paul, "Now, I live --- yet not 'I', but Christ lives in me." Thus is true --- I hope --- of each of us who have entrusted ourselves to Christ, and is eminently true of Mary, the Mother of the Incarnation. She is a kind of scout disciple, for blessed is she who believed "that what was spoken to her by the Lord eiukd be fulfilled." She us the image of the Church, virgin daughter Zion, Daughter of Jerusalem, Lady Ecclesia, the fulfillment of all the promises given to the Woman since Genesis, and thus what we say of her, we can say of ourselves as the Church in whom God dwells.

Are you serious? We can say of Christ, as sole, unique, sui generis, we can say of ourselves? That being made His body means we have all His attributes, titles and glory, being omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, the atonement for the sins of the world, the express image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature by which were all things created, and by which all things consist, that in which should all fulness dwell, and the source of all grace, etc.?

She us the image of the Church, virgin daughter Zion, Daughter of Jerusalem, Lady Ecclesia, the fulfillment of all the promises given to the Woman since Genesis, and thus what we say of her, we can say of ourselves as the Church in whom God dwells.

But Catholics do not simply we say of all believers what they say of the Mary which they have created, but the whole hyperexaltation of her, which is the issue, rests upon uniquely ascribing to her things that are not ascribed to the church or are not uniquely ascribed to Mary.

Reducing the hyperexaltation of Mary to simply being that of ascribing to her things that are ascribed to the church is itself not honest.

[daniel1212]

The difference between ‘reverence,’ and ‘respect,’ is vast.

Beware of the Catholic tactic of reducing the argument to being that of merely bowing or kneeling, versus adoration manifest such as kneeling or prostrating oneself before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them

Which manner of adulation would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine that by playing word games then they can avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.

Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?

The real Mary of Scripture only prayed to the Lord in Heaven, never to anyone else, which is never seen among the approx. 200 prayers in Scripture - except by pagans.

[ealgeone]

D....that link is solid gold!

[ealgeone]

"Kecharitomene" is applied to Mary, "pleres charitos" to Jesus and, "pleres pisteos" to Stephen. (I just looked that up in the Greek Interlinear NT online. Right. And "pleres pisteos" can better be translated "full of faith, or "full of belief.")

Did Keating's work on this, or whoever's you copied, indicate the words used to describe Stephen are not verbs??

You will note in the passage regarding Stephen he was able, through God's blessing, to perform wonders and signs. Mary was unable to do so.

When there was no wine at the wedding she had to ask Jesus for help.

You've already been shown the Catholic Encyclopedia says there is "No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture."

Why do you persist in posting this misleading, false information when you've been corrected previously??

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Why do you persist in posting this misleading, false information when you’ve been corrected previously?? “

A belief in emotion and not Scripture.

Pagan-sourced and gymnastics used to read the idea back into scripture.

In short, wishogesis.

[BlueDragon]

This unique neologism Kecharitomene

< You forgot so soon?

It is not as unique as you are making it out to be.

The same phrase had been used, but gender specific for a male, in one of of the books of what Roman Catholics refer to as Deuterocanon.

Do you not recall myself having posted to you that information -- with supporting links?

I remember yourself not replying. And here you are, going at it again.

Search back through your own comments -- what has been posted to you -- until you find it, so I don't have to. It was probably about a month ago, and took a bit doing (a lot of work) to find, assemble, and post the information.

You ignored it - or at least, did not reply. And now, due to yourself just now having repeated the same false-note claim that I'd previously corrected --you owe me the effort to go find the comment that was posted to you.

It's brilliant. No other Greek formulation could have conveyed it all.

The very same phrase had been addressed to a man with the only difference being the gender. Everything else -- each Greek letter, letter-by-letter was IDENTICAL save for a SINGLE Greek letter indicating the word was being addressed to one of male gender, rather than female. I had posted both forms for comparison -- but you did not reply.

Go find it. It's in your "my comments" section on this web site. In short-term near future, I may, or may not have time to go fetch for you again, what had taken a bit of effort to find and assemble and was posted to you --that you now seem to have ignored, or else forgotten.

Today is the 6th of August. I have a brother who was born on the 9th. Two years ago he told me he had a dream where he died in a hospital, on his birthday. Guess where he is right now? Yesterday, he took a turn for the worse. Over the phone, he sounded horrible. What little information he could supply before hanging up was worrisome (and he has a mass of cancerous growth on his liver 10 centimeter x 11 long -- and it has also spread to other internal organs -- he's heavily sedated, etc.)

For the next few days I may not have the time to deal with Romanist, Marianist ERROR.

Fix your own, woman. I've already supplied the information, and as I said, I had supplied supporting links (to sources of Greek text & English translation). It was all there, placed right in front of you. Why do you persist in your error? Time to give it up, babe. Game over.

Don't make me come back and find it, and re-post it myself. I'll come down on it (your claims over this Greek term) with both feet, if I'm forced to re-post it. I had warned you that I would --had warned that if you did not respond, yet went on repeating the false claims -- that I would. I see that time has come.

Either go find it yourself (and provide to me some reply to that note) or get ready for incoming. I'll blow your position to smithereens. Already have, actually. If there must be a next time, then I'll make sure to keep hammering the points, bouncing the rubble. Do you really want me to go there? If not, give me an option -- respond to that previous comment that had been sent to you.

[BlueDragon]

concur

[Mrs. Don-o]

I didn't read what you wrote before. Must have been lost in the queue. Sometimes my "New Posts to You" runs to dozens a day.

Want to re-post your link? I love the Deuterocanon: you too?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Mary bore in her womb the Second Person of the Trinity, through Whom and for Whom the Universe was created --- Who took flesh from her flesh, and became Man. Is that not a sign and a wonder?

In fact, the greatest one of all?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Jesus IS God. You knew that, right?