Not Authorized: The Untold Story of the Death of the Old Mass

One Peter Five ^ | August 27, 2019 | Sharon Kabel

[ebb tide]

You're in good comapany.

Why Satan Hates the Brown Scapular

Get behind me, ealgeone.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Kecharitomene.

Is there perhaps a reason the Angel of God called Mary that unprecedented and luminous name/title before she conceived her Son?

But we've been through this before.

Jesus is without sin because he's the Savior.

She's without sin because He saved her.

BTW, Adam and Eve also came into their individual existences without sin, too. Would God really want Mary to be inferior to Original Eve?

[papertyger]

But Scripture also makes it clear that what has been written is sufficient for salvation.

No, it doesn't. Only by imputing to the text something the text does not explicitly state can such a claim be made.

IF Rome is allowed to declare whatever it wants to be valid, then one cannot deny the Mormon their extra, and non-Scriptural, writings. Nor could you deny the Muslim their Haddiths.

No, other heretical sects can't deny the validity of fellow heretical sects. It's no problem for Rome. Rome has the historical, apostolic, not to mention Scriptural mandate.

The only way such sects can support their theology is by ignoring probing questions about their doctrines in favor of continually attacking "the real McCoy," and claiming an objectively unfalsifiable "gift of discernment."

[Mrs. Don-o]

Please just clarify this for discussion. You’re saying Mary was foully contaminated by Jesus’ blood?

[ealgeone]

The promise of the Only Son of God:

24“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. John 5:24

The message of the apparition you're trusting:

“This shall be a privilege for you and all Carmelites, that anyone dying in this habit shall not suffer eternal fire.”

Ebb, you've been deceived by Satan.

He will say or do anything to keep you from trusting in Christ.

You're trusting in a man-made piece of cloth to keep you from the very fires you're trying to avoid while you're trust in that idol will condemn you to those very fires.

[ealgeone]

Please just clarify this for discussion. You’re saying Mary was foully contaminated by Jesus’ blood?

Nope. Mary was already a sinner. She was born a sinner.

Mary was saved by faith in Christ.

[ealgeone]

Kecharitomene. Is there perhaps a reason the Angel of God called Mary that unprecedented and luminous name/title before she conceived her Son? But we've been through this before.

Yes we have and you have been shown through Scripture where Rome has erred in this.

But as the appeal to Scripture seems to fall on blind eyes I'll cite the Catholic Encyclopedia...again.

No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.

And as already demonstrated on this thread the Vulgate rendering of Luke 1:28 is not supported by the better ancient texts we have. It's not the first time the Vulgate would be in error in translation.

Again, citing from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

The sentence against the first parents was accompanied by the Earliest Gospel (Proto-evangelium), which put enmity between the serpent and the woman: "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel" (Genesis 3:15). The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

[ealgeone]

>>But Scripture also makes it clear that what has been written is sufficient for salvation. <<

No, it doesn't. Only by imputing to the text something the text does not explicitly state can such a claim be made.

30Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. John 20:30-31 NASB

13These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life. 1 John 5:13 NASB

[ealgeone]

You cite a blog site as an authoritative source! LOL!

When Paul wrote about spiritual warfare in Ephesians 6 he somehow neglected to mention the scapular.

So did the rest of the NT writers.

[ebb tide]

[ealgeone]

Bro, I’m gonna keep sharing the Truth with you. Perhaps one day you will come to faith in Christ...and only Christ.

[Mrs. Don-o]

In Genesis, in the account of sin coming into the world through the disobedience of Adam and Eve, we read that there is to be enmity between Satan and the woman, between his seed and her seed.

Note that this is not something that the woman does, rather it is what God does: God "puts" (causes, places, establishes) enmity between the Woman and her Seed, and Satan and his seed.

Gen 3:15 (KJV)

And I will put enmity
between thee and the woman,
and between thy seed and her seed;
it shall bruise thy head,
and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Who is made the enemy of Satan and his seed in Genesis? The Woman and her Seed.

All women and all seed?

Evidently not. We're all sinners. Woman and men, and the children of Eve in general, have all been to some extent enmeshed in sin, so we are are not in an absolute sense enemies of Satan. We all come into our flawed human nature, not enemies of Satan, but captives, under his sway.

So in an "absolute" and complete sense --- the sense needed to fulfill this Scripture --- this cannot mean that all women and all their seed are enemies of Satan. Rather, it points to just one Woman and one Seed, who both show forth this ultimate "enmity" against Satan and his seed.

I'm thinking you probably agree that this is a prophecy about the Messiah, Jesus Christ, coming to strike the head of the serpent, Satan.

So look, the Hebrew word “seed” is being used in a very unusual way. Normally it applies to the male, but here it is being used in reference to a woman("The Woman and her Seed."). From what particular woman do we have this seed, Jesus? With no male "seed" involved in His conception?

The answer is Mary. Jesus even goes on to identify Mary as the “Woman” three times (John 2:4 , John 19:26, and also Revelation 12 at v. 1 and v.5).

.

Throughout the OT people who were, to some extent, images of that "enmity" against Satan and his evil swarm.

You could name them all: all of the ancestors of Jesus in both Luke and Matthew, all the Biblical heroes and "saviors" (Joshua means savior) and Gideon, plus Deborah, Miriam, Judith and Jael (both of whom bashed Israel's enemies in the head!) --- they are all types. But types are imperfect, limited, fragmentary. They do not fulfill the prophecy of Gen. 3:15. They point to the ultimate real fulfillment.

And as Jesus is the ultimate of the "Seed" opposed to Satan, Mary is the ultimate of the "Woman" in that same sense: set in total enmity to Satan.

She had to be never under Satan's sway.

Hence the significance of her identity in God's eyes: Kecharitomene. She's the Woman signified in Genesis.

[ealgeone]

One of Rome's own sources disagrees with you. So do modern translations of the Bibles Roman Catholics are allowed to use as I've already posted.

However, once again, from the Catholic Encyclopedia...

The sentence against the first parents was accompanied by the Earliest Gospel (Proto-evangelium), which put enmity between the serpent and the woman: "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel" (Genesis 3:15). The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically.

I notice you don't cite the Vulgate but rather appeal to the KJV. Interesting for a RC to do so.

Curious as to why you don't cite the "official" version of the Bible for Roman Catholics.

And please, don't try the "it's the version "Protestants" use.

I use the NASB and the Greek in my study of the Word.

*******

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

******

I agree this verse points to Jesus rather than Mary as asserted by Roman Catholicism.

However, I do see you attempt to equate this as being Mary in some way. Very typical of Roman Catholics to always work Mary into the equation in some way.

Here's late breaking news:

ONLY Christ can save us and deliver us. No one else...Mary included.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Where do you wash your hands after serving as an EEM?"

I don't...because I don't do "EEM" due to limited physical mobility. I serve as lector, in RCIA, and SVDP.

And IMO, you demonstrate that you are neither Christian NOR Catholic....just a nutcase fanatic. Take a lesson from Mrs. Don-O....she does it right.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Gimme a break!! It is God Almighty who "worked Mary into the equation in some way."

And you can't quite fault my using the KJV,--- so you just flip back to criticizing the Douay-Rheims! Which I didn't even mention! Red herrings flyin' all over the place.

So you just ignore the whole Scriptural exposition altogether, especially the Genesis key that

Woman and her Seed are fulfilled by Mary and Her Son Jesus

Your obliviouslness about this, I'll admit, a disappointment to me, because I keep hoping that some FReeper somewhere will be honestly interested in exploring the Scriptures concerning Mary's role in the Incarnation.

And KJV is fine by me.

I could show you a dozen Biblical examples, only to be answered by not one moment of reflection, but within seconds, a dozen reflex denials.

The Incarnation is deep and brilliant and beautiful in its significance, and thus the gifted role of Mary stretches from Genesis to Revelation. It's all there in a whole panoramic lineup of dramatic and spiritual types, history and poetry, in Psalm, example and prophecy.

But I have not encountered a non-Catholic non-Orthodox here, yet, who doesn't instantly shove all things about Mary and the Incarnation right under the quicksand, ("and stay down!") while professing, "She is so totally insignificant!"

You miss so much this way!

I'm not saying FReepers who want to get deep into, e.g.,Mary in the OT, are not out there. It's that the rest of them are not speaking up.

Except in all those FReepmails! For which I thank you all.

[ealgeone]

And you can't quite fault my using the KJV,--- so you just flip back to criticizing the Douay-Rheims! Which I didn't even mention! Red herrings flyin' all over the place.

You're right. I don't fault your use of the KJV. As I noted, I'm surprised to see a RC use it as it is not an "approved" version of the Bible for Roman Catholics.

http://www.usccb.org/bible/approved-translations/index.cfm

The Incarnation is deep and brilliant and beautiful in its significance, and thus the gifted role of Mary stretches from Genesis to Revelation.

Only if one practices eisegesis does one "find" Mary from Genesis to Revelation. But using this discredited means of Biblical interpretation one can "find" pretty much anything they want in Scripture.

But I have not encountered a non-Catholic non-Orthodox here, yet, who doesn't instantly shove all things about Mary and the Incarnation right under the quicksand, ("and stay down!") while professing, "She is so totally insignificant!"

Perhaps you should become acquainted with the NT writers. I know they're not Freepers, but they're pretty up to date on this issue.

After Acts 1, Mary disappears from mention in Scripture.

Mary's role in Scripture is concerned with being the mother of Jesus and his step brothers and sisters.

NONE of the attributes (Immaculate, Mediatrx, Redemptrix, etc) given to Mary by Roman Catholicism are found in Scripture. Indeed these are contradicted by Scripture.

[Mrs. Don-o]

The New Testament is concealed
in the Old;
the Old Testament is revealed
in the New.

`

You realize--- I hope -- that religious Jews from the NT til this very day reject every Christian attempt to "see" Jesus Christ in the OT as "eisegesis."

For a millennium and a half, the very same Christ-loving Christian scholars who recognized the Messiah "hidden" in the OT, recognized the Mother of the Messiah there, too.

You're simply rejecting, without inspecting, the whole collection of OT scholarship which, by clarifying the Mother of the Messiah prophecies there, actually reinforce every doctrine about the nature of Jesus.

The Messiah and Mother-of-the-Messiah exegeses intertwine. By flicking one element of the picture away like a piece of lint, you diminish and dishonor the whole.

There is no OT insight about Mary that does not reflect, illustrate, strengthen and clarify our understanding of her Divine Son.

But I won't further expend my energies on the uninterested.

[ebb tide]

Mrs. Don-o has never called anyone a nutcase fanatic to my knowledge.

[papertyger]

So all one needs for “faith and practice” is the writings of St. John?

That’s quite a bit of confidence in the word “may.”

[ealgeone]

So all one needs for “faith and practice” is the writings of St. John? That’s quite a bit of confidence in the word “may.”

IF one understands the Greek the answer is yes.

However, it is not a guarantee a person will believe in Christ.

The text does not make that claim.

The text is clear though that the believer in Christ can know He is the Christ and that by believing you may have eternal life.