Posted on 01/05/2014 9:52:14 AM PST by ebb tide
Good for you. Ever wonder why you have Protestants supporting you and I have none?
I don’t wonder about other Freepers, especially who left the Catholic Church.
betrayal: go against promise: to act in a way that is contrary to a promise made
The Lord's Passion was foretold in Isaiah 53 and Psalms 22:16 and was the fulfillment of God's promise. Therefore, when our Blessed Mother gave her fiat, she knew what she was consenting to, and thus the speculations regarding a sense of "betrayal" on her part contradict what we know to be true.
53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? 53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. 53:3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. 53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
---------------
For many dogs have encompassed me: the council of the malignant hath besieged me. They have dug my hands and feet.
Good. Let me know when you come back to the Church.
perhaps she had the urge to say: ‘Lies! I was deceived!' [...] But She, with silence, covered the mystery that She did not understand and with this silence she left this mystery so that it could grow and flourish in hope.Pope Francis: Silence Reveals the Mystery of God's Plan
You guys never quote in full context. I wonder why.
I think y’all are messin’ with this protestant pastor coming up with all these Francis Mary treads.
Is there a Saint Francis Mary the Protestor?
If there is, I’m gonna LOL!
If I happened to be speaking about you and said "perhaps he had the urge to say: 'Lies! I was deceived!', the implication would be clear - that in fact your possession of such thoughts would have to exist within the realm of possibility (which scripture, traditional Church teaching, history, and common sense demonstrate to be untrue in the case of our Blessed Mother, who was perfectly united with Our Lord in His Passion.) The words ("perhaps she had the urge to say: ‘Lies! I was deceived!") in association with the Mother of God (even in a speculative sense) are demonstrably counterfactual, which is the reason Pope Francis' remarks resulted in such widespread incredulity. If the objective was to contrast her response with that of an ordinary person, then the effort fell short, because the words that would have made the supposed contrast unambiguous are simply not there.
If this WIDESPREAD surprise and confusion among the faithful is the result of a poor choice of words on his part, then perhaps the Vatican ought to issue another clarification.
I don't wanna bust yer bubble, but Francis' homily and its understanding of Mary was way too high a view of Mary for almost the entire field of churches derived in some way, shape, or form from those early protestant churches. And it's too high a view even for the descendants of the original Protestans, except maybe historically the Anglican, and the Anglicans barely count any more given their many heresies -- (with apologies to the African Primates)
That homily is Roman Catholic or it's nothing. Realizing that I think you are misinterpreting the homily, maybe the human view of Mary is more orthodox. Perhaps the Orthodox have a high view of God's Ark but also one that doesn't require her sinless conception to such an extent that it prevents the human human from shining through.
Source? Context?
Are you that lazy?
These are the kinds of articles that make me dislike Catholics.
Did you ever?
It's nothing. And I don't pay attention to Protestants who think they can tell me what is and isn't Roman Catholic.
What I told u is that the dumb title says it’s Protestant. I’d suggest u take a deep breath and read for comprehension
Re-read your post. You told me no such thing.
You haven’t backed up what you posted with proper documentation and you ask if I am lazy?
Hmmmm....
Anyone can read the entire report at the link; my quote is complete context: it shows the antecedent “perhaps she had the urge to say: ‘Lies! I was deceived!’”, and the conclusion “But She, with silence [...]”
Learn to understand written text.
I’m sorry, but you need to read #49 again. It talks about protestants, old and new. It talks about orthodox. It says that it isn’t protestant, that maybe it’s orthodox. And, since Francis is a Roman Catholic pope, (for Pete’s sake), I said it’s either Roman or nothing.
I didn’t try to instruct you about Catholicism at all. Maybe I’m the worst writer in the world. That’s a possibility. I think I was clear. Therefore, I’m thinking that you must be reading a different post than the one that I wrote.
Not at all; the implication would be that the situation would provoke most anyone to such words, and the Cross was exactly such type of a situation.
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.