Posted on 04/29/2017 8:02:13 AM PDT by NYer
As we pray for the success of Pope Francis’ trip to Egypt this weekend, a perfect prayer to use is the oldest known Marian prayer, which in fact, traces back to the pope’s host country.
The oldest known Marian prayer is found on an ancient Egyptian papyrus dating from around the year 250. Today known in the Church as the Sub tuum praesidium, the prayer is believed to have been part of the Coptic Vespers liturgy during the Christmas season.
The original prayer was written in Greek and according to Roseanne Sullivan, “The prayer is addressed to Our Lady using the Greek word Θεοτόκος, which is an adjectival form of Θεοφόρος (Theotokos, or God-bearer) and is more properly translated as ‘she whose offspring is God.'” This helps to prove that the early Christians were already familiar with the word “Theotokos” well before the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus ratified its usage.
Below can be found the original Greek text from the papyrus, along with an English translation as listed on the New Liturgical Movement website:
| On the papyrus, we can read: .ΠΟ ΕΥCΠΑ ΚΑΤΑΦΕ ΘΕΟΤΟΚΕΤ ΙΚΕCΙΑCΜΗΠΑ ΕΙΔΗCΕΜΠΕΡΙCTAC AΛΛΕΚΚΙΝΔΥΝΟΥ …ΡΥCΑΙΗΜΑC MONH …HEΥΛΟΓ |
And an English translation could be: Under your mercy we take refuge, Mother of God! Our prayers, do not despise in necessities, but from the danger deliver us, only pure, only blessed. |
More commonly the prayer is translated:
Beneath your compassion,
We take refuge, O Mother of God:
do not despise our petitions in time of trouble:
but rescue us from dangers,
only pure, only blessed one.
Several centuries later a Latin prayer was developed and is more widely known in the Roman Catholic Church:
| Latin Text Sub tuum praesidium confugimus, Sancta Dei Genetrix. Nostras deprecationes ne despicias in necessitatibus nostris, sed a periculis cunctis libera nos semper, Virgo gloriosa et benedicta |
English Text We fly to Thy protection, O Holy Mother of God; Do not despise our petitions in our necessities, but deliver us always from all dangers, O Glorious and Blessed Virgin. Amen. |
The prayer is currently part of the Byzantine, Roman and Ambrosian rites in the Catholic Church and is used specifically as a Marian antiphon after the conclusion of Compline outside of Lent (in the older form of the Roman breviary). It is also a common prayer that has stood the test of time and is a favorite of many Christians, and is the root of the popular devotional prayer, the Memorare.
I appreciate your concern for keeping the arguments Christian, but I do not have a problem with MHGinTN arguing for his position. If he thinks he is correct and if he thinks I am guilty of such a major error, attempting to point out my error is the charitable thing to do; just as I am trying to be charitable by arguing for what I believe to be true. Truth matters.
They were rebuked when their teachings and traditions neglected the "weightier matters of the law" but he did not rebuke their teachings and traditions as such: "you should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former."(Matthew 23:23) Nor did he deny their authority to sit in Moses' seat, insisting rather that "you must obey them" even when their practice does not fit what they preach (Matthew 23:3). He transferred their authority to the Apostles, giving the Apostles the power of binding and loosing which had previously been held by the Sanhedrin (Matthew 16:19, 18:18). The Apostles in turn passed on their authority through the laying of hands (Acts 6:6, 13:3, 1 Timothy 4:14, 2 Timothy 1:6; also see the quotes I posted in #533 on the Apostolic succession). Without this succession of apostolic authority, where do Christians have any divine authorization for our mission? Would we not be preaching a merely human tradition if today's Church has no divine authorization descended from the Apostles?
But beyond the issue of apostolic authority, there is the issue of historical attestation: how do we know which books belong in the Bible, if we dismiss as unreliable witnesses our only witnesses to their apostolic authorship, as some posts in this thread have done with respect to their attestation to the practice of the early church?
See my #529 on this.
On this one, see my #530-531.
Thank you for your reply as well. I did not forget, I have just been extremely busy! God bless.
No, but he was not forgetting about himself, either; he goes on to say that the least in the kingdom of heaven are greater than John, and he further indicates that he is specifically comparing John to the prophetic figures of the OT ("the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John").
And now back to work—been answering posts on this thread for four hours now, so that’ll be all from me for a while. Peace out.
Is it not possible for God to call men today as He did with Paul?
So, we see you are not only wrong but proudly wrong and closed to seeing Truth when offered to you. Your work here is supporting ‘the spirit of anti-Christ by directly impugning GOD’s character. You, as a blind Catholic are unable to see the defrauding your master has inveigle into your religion’s dogma, but a born from above Christian sees it quickly and discerns your spirit.
Was Mary already espoused to Joseph when the embryonic JESUS implanted in her uterus? If so, all of her genetic reproductive future was espoused to Joseph, so to take an ovum from Mary would defraud Joseph’s espousal. That you will not admit that says a lot about how closed your mind is due to Catholiciism dogma. By being gestated in Mary’s womb, Jesus was as much heir to David’s throne as having an adopting father in Joseph made Him heir through Joseph’s line.
I understand but you are wasting each others time.
It is like two fleas trying to tell each other what the dog thinks, each one convinced the other is wrong.
This from the fella that is part of an Organization that states:
"Thou shalt ask dead people, we now call saints, to pray for you." This is a Rome madeup teaching with no Scriptural authority behind it.
Which ones?
No; logic is NOT one of your strong points.
Too bad the actual WRITERS of the NT didn't feel the need!
Then where is room for speculation??
If God did *not* take an ovum from Mary, what sense does it make to call Jesus a descendant of David, the Son of David (per Matthew 1, Luke 3, Romans 1:3, etc.)?
Why not answer your own question, Els?
Obviously, Jesus was excluding Himself from that statement. I really doubt that anyone would argue otherwise, certainly not John the Baptist.
To exclude Mary from that statement is a heroic assumption. In a sense, Mary is part of the prophetic line as the "Virgin with Child." Certainly, Mary's Song in response to Elizabeth's proclamation contained prophetic elements. It would be far more logical to include Mary with the prophets than it would be to exclude her.
he goes on to say that the least in the kingdom of heaven are greater than John
The fact that Jesus said that John was less than the least in heaven is irrelevant here. Both John and Mary were on earth.
("the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John").
This expression really shows what honor that Jesus was bestowing on John. Many people identified Jesus as the long-awaited Messiah including Mary, Elizabeth, Anna, Simeon, etc. but the proclamation that really mattered was John's. John was special among prophets because he was given the authority to say "That's Him." Obviously, both John and Mary had important roles but contrary to Marian Dogma, it seems Scripture assigned John a higher role. Do not forget Luke 11:27-28 when Jesus Himself redirected the focus of the woman who tried to heap praise on Mary.
Selah ... here is wisdom.
What Elsie had posted in #208 was all about "intercessory" prayers ---you say. Sorry -- it was not. I'm not buying your spin, doctor.
The types of quotes from Catholic sources that were being showcased there, and again in comment #505 go far beyond being limited to merely referencing "intercessory prayer".
Even if going only that far with things, asking those in heaven to "pray for us", that alone is still problematic for a variety of reasons I'll not go too fully into for the time being other than to say were not part of the earliest, primitive church. Prayers were originally given for, and about the dead, as attested to by earliest liturgies. There were not prayers directed to those whom had passed on (but thought to be in Heaven) to plead with departed saints for their own personal intercessions ---not until some time contemporary with Chrysostom.
You may fool yourself with such talk ---but you are not fooling me.
Perhaps to the "tone" (but I still seriously doubt that, despite your objections) yet not to the intent -- afaict. I would have to be correct in the latter ---or else it would be you who simply does not well enough understand the import of the small sampling of Marionist hyperventilating that was posted --- and is but a limited part and parcel sampling of how, theologically speaking, "Mary" has been portrayed as more accessible than God Himself -- while being attributed to herself also possession of many of God the Father's own, and Jesus Christ's own attributes.
Spare me the piety act. It's like enlarging the hems of one's garment, then standing out on a street corner praying loudly -- so everyone passing by will notice the "piety".
Yet if you actually do pray for me (not that I am asking you to, far from it)-- try listening, instead of talking. God knows who I am. I've encountered Him quite directly, many times over. Listen to hear if He tells you something you may not expect -- like -- something that does not fit in with whatever presuppositions you may have.
Of course you didn't. There was any easy way to avoid doing anything like approaching that. Instead, you took an easy way to deal with it and distance everyone from further examining what was posted ---by way of having projected this kind of nonsense into the mix;
"Judging by..." and "I guess you think...". That's where things went haywire (and even became rude, and potentially offensive) and that's right where I stepped in to straighten you out. So sue me for having called attention to that piece of slick as snot mind reading...
Complaints now about myself being rude --- mean little at this point. Look to your own, and in the future, I may possibly be troubling you less with mine.
It was yourself who had first engaged in conflating the alleged "keys" that adorers of "Mary" write (poetically?) that Mary allegedly possesses, with the keys mentioned in Matthew 16. REMEMBER???
If leaving Mary out of it, focusing upon the Apostles written of in scripture texts; what other authority was Jesus talking about? As I touched upon, and gave scriptural support for; it was not that Peter would have some over-riding authority over other Apostles. We could include the thought that within scriptural texts Jesus PRECLUDED His own approval of later doctrinal developments within the Latin church, namely; the idea that other bishops' and priests' own alleged "authority" would be derived from, and be dependent upon so-called "Petrine authority" that was intended to be possessed by whoever happened to be bishop of Rome at any particular time, although I do detect that nowadays -- there is effort to unwind/modify that position (while still clinging to it!) at the same time...
That's when the RC secret decoder rings get to twirling with great rapidity -- in order to cover for all the talking out of both sides of the face that the Latin Church in past ages (and now also) indulges itself with...
Regarding singular "papacy", the early Church most certainly did not see things the way Rome alone eventually asserted things were to be. If Rome's way of looking at this subject were to have been what was "instituted by Christ" -- NOBODY NOTICED for many centuries. Why is that?
Was the early Church that dumb, even stupid -- they did not notice? They would have to have been, yet there is evidence against that...
THE ASSUMPTION OF MARYA Roman Catholic Dogma Originating with Heretics and Condemned as Heretical by 2 Popes in the 5th and 6th Centuries.
You said;
Horsefeathers. Though there were isolated appeals to Rome made here and there among early centuries Church history, it was not as if all anyone had to do would be to gain assent of the bishop of Rome in order to settle theological dispute.
That becomes more plain when the fuller contexts and setting of the few appeals to 'Rome' there were are critically examined, rather than cherry-picked in truncated portion and paragraph. Many of those appeals also began after concept of patriarchate had taken root, and from among the Western, or Latin Church, with ourselves needing to bear in mind here that there were once three (or even, five) See's of Peter in existence.
None of those latter relied singularly upon a bishop of Rome, nor had elevated that bishopric to be a place of "bishop of bishops". A Latin church "Pope", Gregory the Great wrote against the very notion of there being a singular papacy, a "bishop of bishops" as he put it (if memory properly serves) terming the very idea of it --- demonic. It's no real wonder why persons such as John Calvin described Gregory as the last "good" Pope.
Citing questionable (& problematic) material from Irenaeus [see & clic upon footnote 3313 in just previous link] in isolation of the argument he was making -- hardly makes the case which you need to make, for Irenaeus was pointing to Rome at that early juncture as a place where Gnostic heresies had not gotten much traction, rather than to have been pointing to Rome as some seat of authority that he himself relied upon.
If it was a simple matter of appealing to Rome -- why is there not yet more of "appealing to Rome", and repeated instances of more explicit directing everyone to simply go there in order to settle any dispute from this one writer (Irenaeus) who wrote extensively against a variety of heresy?
Irenaeus himself corrected two different Latin Church bishops. One of them, Victor, he corrected for having gotten carried away with the idea of a bishop of Rome having overweening authority over other bishops. Imagine that!
It amazes me how Catholics will cite Irenaeus in the one place where they think they can squeeze in sideways early support for Romish notions of Latin Church Supremacy -- while ignoring anything and everything else which goes contrary to that precise sought for ending point...
If how you are laying out the case for what in the end does equate/will be converted into equating to Romish Supremacy [see Vatican I: http://www.catholicplanet.org/councils/20-Pastor-Aeternus.htm] were that simple, then there would be much more material available to support the cause from widely among the earliest Church ----rather than reliance be chiefly upon isolated snippets of scripture, and cherry-picked citation from early church fathers.
You say;
I noticed that you had seized upon that qualifier I had employed --- "not...beyond correction of other bishops". It's about time the Church of Rome woke up and smelled the coffee.
Coffee must not have been partaken of all that much during Vatican I;
"...Hence we teach and declare that, by the appointment of our Lord, the Roman Church possesses a superiority of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world, ... "
[snip] "... And since, by the Divine right of Apostolic primacy, the Roman Pontiff is placed over the Universal Church, We further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all causes, the decision of which belongs to the Church, recourse may be had to his tribunal, and that none may re-open the judgment of the Apostolic See, for none has greater authority, nor can anyone lawfully review its judgment. Therefore, they stray from the right course who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs to an Ecumenical Council, as if to an authority higher than that of the Roman Pontiff. ..."
There is no real room for a Pope be subject to "the correction by the other bishops" in the above, from Vatican I.
Spare me the assertion that there is, based upon it being insisted that there is -- now, in more recent time -- and asserted only by v*some* among the Latin Church --- for it was once, not so, not at all. No one would dare, although there may have been more "Popes" whacked (killed, that is) by other popes, and various interests within the Latin Church than is freely confessed to...
To end this, let us focus again on what Matthew 16 meant among the early Church. Although notions of Peter having what came to be widely referred to as "primacy", a being "first" in a variety of things, arguing for that is near-meaningless when not considering also how the Church of Rome took it to be inheritable, and inheritable for themselves alone, while rather simultaneously adjusting the meaning of the word to equate with Supremacy over all the rest of the Church.
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.