Posted on 02/11/2014 7:03:38 AM PST by NYer
thank you..I wasn’t sure
it may be a matter of style rather than substance.
If only that were the case.
"Boston pastor praised by Cardinal O’Malley puts Holy Family on par with homosexual couples" http://bostoncatholicinsider.wordpress.com/2014/01/06/boston-pastor-praised-by-cardinal-omalley-puts-holy-family-on-par-with-homosexual-couples/
That is so sad.
“Mary and Jesus opened the new way,” the monsignor said, to show that “man and woman are for each other."
Co-openers as it were, to the second half in context(mother and Son) is creepy.
Perhaps he was misquoted and doesn't actually believe that?
"All things are delivered to me by my Father; and no one knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and to whom the Son will reveal him."
----------
“The knowledge and love of our Divine Redeemer, of which we were the object from the first moment of His Incarnation, exceed all the human intellect can hope to grasp. For hardly was He conceived in the womb of the Mother of God, when He began to enjoy the beatific vision, and in that vision all the members of His Mystical Body were continually and unceasingly present to Him, and He embraced them with His redeeming love.” Pius XII, Mystici Corporis
If so, put him line for the next Pope. That hope for a mis-quotation needs to extend to the second half the quote. Although this type of thinking is engendered by the proliferation of Marian hype. At some point the mistranslation/quote fiasco has to end.
I suspect he was attempting to convey the concept of Mary as the "New Eve".
"Of course, using the term “woman” to refer to Mary in the context of John’s prologue and his theme of new creation strongly suggests that we should be seeing a connection to the woman of the old creation: Eve." When looked at from this perspective, Mary’s actions at Cana constitute an inversion of Eve’s actions in the garden. Where Eve doubted, Mary had faith. Where Eve took the fruit for herself, Mary provided wine to others. Where Eve tempted Adam into sin, Mary inspired the New Adam to his first sign. Speaking of signs… In John’s gospel, the wine at Cana is clearly a prefiguring (sign) of the Eucharist*. And constant Christian interpretation has read the fruit of the garden as a prefiguring of the true “fruit of the tree of life” in the Eucharist. Together, all of this adds up to one thing: Mary is the New Eve. ”[T]he knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith.” (Irenaeus)
http://bodytheologic.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/mary-the-new-eve-cana/
I suspect that as well, but the concept and the imagery don't work. Adam and Eve were mates, Mary and Christ weren't.
Nothing wrong with things Spanish! I live in the oldest European founded city in the US, St Augustine, FL, founded by the Spanish in 1565 (although they had explored and claimed Florida in 1513).
One of Andrew Jackson’s big missions was to de-Hispanicize Florida when it finally became a territory, not only in terms of its Spanishness, but its Catholicism. This led to the grand old Southern tradition of anti-Catholicism, which was part of the KKK anti-black, anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish program of later years.
Anti-Catholicism has long been a problem for the US, which has always secretly regarded Catholicism as un-American. I think it is still one of the things that motivates the bizarre hatred of Hispanics one sees, even though most people don’t want to admit it.
That said, I think one of our problems is that Catholics, instead of standing up and defending their faith and practices, take the JFK approach of separating their morality from their politics. Not that JFK had any morals, but he didn’t even want to be perceived as having a moral position he was defending. Whatever was legal was by definition OK, an attitude that most of America shares.
Standing up for your beliefs does not mean that you’re going to impose them on anyone else; it simply means that you’re not going to let them impose their beliefs on you! But Catholics got into the habit of cringing and apologizing, especially after Vatican II, and sadly there are many bishops who still think this is the way to win friends and influence people.
It’s not. It’s the way to get ridiculed, rejected and crushed under the boot.
Of course not. It's about balance. And about respecting our borders. Cardinal O'Malley seems to have a problem with recognizing that American citizens have the right to a secure border and the right not to be taxed into oblivion for the support of socialist programs, the root of which appears to be a bizarre obsession with all things Hispanic.
Standing up for your beliefs does not mean that you’re going to impose them on anyone else; it simply means that you’re not going to let them impose their beliefs on you!
Very true.
Maybe because Hispanics also underperform in all social indicators, are hostile to white American culture, and have never successfully integrated into American life, even those who are fourth or greater generation.
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.