Posted on 03/23/2015 2:14:57 PM PDT by RnMomof7
Renaming Mary does nothing to correct erroneous teaching about Jesus.
It only leads to further confusion and error.
The phrase/ title “Mother of God” appears nowhere in Scripture. The Holy Spirit saw fit to inspire the writers of the NT Scripture to identify her as “mother of Jesus”.
It would seem so. Or how about having more titles and names than God?
She has? You mean as a statue?
The woman Israel.
Are you saying that it is impossible to worship something without calling it God or without using the word worship?
Oh please. How long will Catholics deny the statements from the MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS of Pope Pius XII which they believe to be infallible?
In the same way, it was not difficult for them to admit that the great Mother of God, like her only begotten Son, had actually passed from this life. But this in no way prevented them from believing and from professing openly that her sacred body had never been subject to the corruption of the tomb, and that the august tabernacle of the Divine Word had never been reduced to dust and ashes. [MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS Pope Pius XII 14]
"Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself." [MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS Pope Pius XII 17]
As he kept you a virgin in childbirth, thus he has kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb. [MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS Pope Pius XII 18]
And, when our predecessor St. Sergius I prescribed what is known as the litany, or the stational procession, to be held on four Marian feasts, he specified together the Feasts of the Nativity, the Annunciation, the Purification, and the Dormition of the Virgin Mary. [MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS Pope Pius XII 19]
They offered more profound explanations of its meaning and nature, bringing out into sharper light the fact that this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death, her heavenly glorification after the example of her only begotten Son, Jesus Christ-truths that the liturgical books had frequently touched upon concisely and briefly. [MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS Pope Pius XII 19]
It was fitting that she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death. [MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS Pope Pius XII 21]
she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him. [MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS Pope Pius XII 22]
preserved and exempt from all the corruption of the tomb and raised up to such glory in heaven. [MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS Pope Pius XII 26]
for it is wrong to believe that her body has seen corruption-because it was really united again to her soul and, together with it, crowned with great glory in the heavenly courts. [MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS Pope Pius XII 28]
And St. Alphonsus writes that "Jesus did not wish to have the body of Mary corrupted after death, since it would have redounded to his own dishonor to have her virginal flesh, from which he himself had assumed flesh, reduced to dust. [MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS Pope Pius XII 35]
By those statements the Catholic Church "infallibly" declared that Mary died. Can we stop already with the nonsense of Catholics denying that it did so?
“(One might as easily denigrate motherhood by portraying it as “an endless stream of dirty diapers”... “
Let’s be clear here, what I am denigrating is a fairy tale being promoted by your church authorities. Nobody has been to heaven and returned to report to us what Mary is actually up to. The fairy tale is preposterous, verges on blasphemy, and deserves to be ridiculed.
“If we’re willing to admit that God enlightens those whom He wills in that case, why is it such a stretch that He could enlighten the Communion of Saints in Heaven to whatever prayers He wishes them to know?”
It’s an assumption for which we have no evidence. One simply doesn’t base a doctrine on the principle of “why not?” and then delude the faithful with a fantasy. Especially when such a fantasy contradicts the clear instructions of Jesus on how we are to pray.
“Why pray for ANYONE else, EVER, since God both knows the needs before we ask, and God has the power to deal with them with no effort?”
We do this because Christ instructed us to do this, unlike prayers to saints, Mary, etc.
“The idea that God would somehow be passionately desirous of our prayers for each other while on earth, but would (for whatever reason) absolutely prohibit any such prayer by the Saints IN Heaven for those still on earth, is absurd.”
Nobody is saying that is prohibited, there is just no evidence for it one way or the other. What we do know is prohibited is for the living to attempt to communicate with those who have died in the flesh. God condemned that practice quite clearly and spelled out consequences for those who engage in that grave sin, so it’s hardly something that should be encouraged by a church.
And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child till the day of her death. (2 Samuel 6:23)This usage plainly states that after the day of her death, Michal did "have a child". If the word before had been used, we couldnt make that conclusion, but with till, there is no other way to read it.
Re: latria, dulia, etc.: please do remember that Catholics do not obey the artificial, man-made tradition known as “Scripture alone”. The distinction by which “dulia” and “latria” were made “technical terms” came long after the NT was written... just as the words “Trinity” (Gk: Triada) and “consubstantial” (Gk: homoousios) were coined well after the NT was written. They were coined for convenience (such as the word “venial”, to describe sin which is not mortal—cf. 1 John 5:16-17), and not for any supposed magic, totemic value.
With that in mind, you can still make all the points you just made, but more accurately. :o)
Let me address the question of bowing and kneeling, because if I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that those are gestures of latria,, not, properly speaking, dulia.
Heres where the confusion comes in. Whats forbidden is offering a creature gestures (bowing, kneeling, prostrating, or whatever) of adoration; not we are not forbidden those same gestures or postures as a sign of honor or respect.
Can I show that Biblically? Sure. It permeates Old Testament culture.
I looked up kneel(ing) and bow(ing) in the good old BibleGateway Keyword Search, and found so many references it would be exhausting to list them all. Genesis 23:7 Then Abraham rose and bowed down before the people of that land
Genesis 33:3-7 Jacob bowed down to the ground seven times ("seven" is Biblically used as symbolic number indicating completion and perfection) as he approached his brother Esau
maidservants and their children bow down to Esau; Leah and her children bow; Joseph and Rachel bow;
Genesis 37 Josephs dreams: his brothers sheaves of corn - and then the sun and moon and eleven stars bow down to him. Later his brothers actually do bow down to him with their faces to the ground (another sign of absolute subjection or submission);
Genesis 48:11 Joseph bows to Jacob with his face to the earth;
1 Kings 1:15 Bathsheba bows low (face to the ground) and kneels before the aged king David
2 Kings 1:13 the captain kneels before the prophet Elijah, and "prays" begs- him to spare his life and the life of his 50 men
Moses bows down to father-in-law; Ruth bows down to Boaz; David prostrates before Jonathan; David prostrates to Saul; Abigail prostrates to David; Saul prostrates to Samuel; Nathan prostrates to David; Obadiah bows to the ground before Elijah; the prophets in Jericho bow before Elisha; the whole assembly bows low and prostrates before David;
David bows to the Temple (a place); the sons of the oppressors will bow to Zion (a place); David prostrates to Jerusalem (another place);
God causes the kings adversaries to bow prostrate on the ground and lick the dust at his feet.
OK, pretty obviously the patriarchs, prophets, and kings knew about the commandment not to bow down and worship anything or anybody but God. But here they are bowing, kneeling, and prostrating, and God is not offended. Why?
Because the commandment clearly forbids bowing and adoring a creature as the Creator; it does not forbid kneeling or bowing (to king, prophet, father, husband or brother) as a form of honor.
The commandment does not prohibit kneeling or bowing to give honor. It prohibits adoration toward anyone but Almighty God.
Now heres an interesting episode:
1 Kings 2:19 |
Heres the King bowing to and enthroning his mother. Does that mean shes equal to God? No. It doesnt even mean shes equal to the King. It means hes pleased to honor her because of her royal dignity, her relationship as Queen Mother.
As our mindset gets further and further from traditional custom and culture, it gets harder and harder to grasp what was once the universal language of physical gesture (he salute, the tip of the hat, the bow, the genuflection, the handclasp, the curtsey, the kiss) and put each expression in its proper perspective.
I think we need to be more engaged with these ancient ceremonial practices of address and gesture, so intrinsic to an honor culture; a courtly culture; a Biblical culture. Its something to ponder and appreciate. As I live, I appreciate it more and more.
This explains why you rarely see the roman catholic appeal to the Greek in this matter.
In the Greek, Luke uses the phrase τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον, translated literally as the son of her, the firstborn. In English we would say, her firstborn son.
The key word in this section is πρωτότοκον (prototokos). It means first, pre-eminent; the first among others. It allows for other children to be born to Mary.
Contrast this with John 3:16 where John uses the Greek Υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ, literally Son the only begotten.
The key word is μονογενῆ (monogenes). It means one and only; one of a class.
We know this is the correct description of Jesus as He is the only Son of God.
However, He is not the only son of Mary. Recall that Luke was a physician who by his own account researched a lot so we would have an accurate account of what happened.
If Luke wanted to indicate Mary had only one child he would have used the phrase John did.
In reading the accounts where the brothers and sisters of Jesus are mentioned we need to keep the verses in context.
We have the account of Paul in Galatians where he noted he met James, the Lord's brother among others.
These are not cousins of Jesus as the word cousin, ἀνεψιός, is used only in reference to Barnabas's cousin Mark. As Paul had traveled with Barnabas so he would know if he was a cousin or a brother or other relative.
>Mt 12:46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, [his] mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.<
"Brethren" (Gk: "adelphos") was a rendering of the Aramaic word for "kin"--which could mean anything from "blood-sibling" (cf. Matthew 4:21, etc.) to "fellow Israelite" (cf. Phillipians 4:8, etc.) No one can simply (and carelessly) "run away" with the English word "brother", and immediately conclude, "Ah! Blood siblings, and fellow biological children of Mary!" Ditto, for Matthew 12.
Here is where the roman catholic departs from the clear reading of the text....allowing the text to interpret itself as it does not fit their agenda.
In Phil 4:8 the text tells us Paul is writing to the church at Philippi. Were fellow believers called brothers and sisters? Yes. And how do we know the difference? CONTEXT IS KEY!!!!!!
Now, in this next passage in Matt, ask the following questions:
Where are they?
Where was Jesus from?
Where did His family live?
Some background on Nazareth will help with this. It was not a big town; rather it was a small village. Estimated population was around 500. The people know each other.
Where was Jesus teaching?
Was his teaching something new; something they'd never heard before?
To show their astonishment what did they ask?
When Jesus had finished these parables, He departed from there. 54He came to His hometown and began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers? 55Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things? Matt 13:53-56
Now, after answering the questions and reading the verse in context.....we see Jesus had brothers and sister.
Didn't realize this was name calling in your world view.
Interesting world in which you live.
Let's see if that's true or not. We find the Greek word "Latria" here:
Romans 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service (latreia).
Greek - latreia - Definition: service rendered to God [http://biblehub.com/greek/2999.htm]
Now let's see if that "service" is rendered to Mary by Catholics.
O Mother of God, Immaculate Mary, to thee do I dedicate my body and soul, all my prayers and deeds, my joys and sufferings, all that I am an all that I have. With a joyful heart I surrender myself to thy love. To thee will I devote my services of my own free will for the salvation of mankind, and for the help of the Holy Church whose Mother thou art.
From now on my only desire is to do all things with thee, through thee, and for thee. I know I can accomplish nothing by my own strength, whereas thou can do everything that is the will of thy Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ. Thou are always victorious. Grant, therefore, O Helper of the Faithful, that my family, my parish, and my country might become in truth the Kingdom where thou reignest in the glorious presence God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, forever and ever. Amen. [http://www.marypages.com/PrayerstoMary.htm]
Well, well, well! Devoting their service (latreia) to Mary!
>>We give her "Hypedulia"<<
Catholics do indeed give her "hyperdulia". But let's look to see where that "hyperdulia" actually belongs.
First let's look where that word "dulia" comes from.
Greek - doulos - properly, someone who belongs to another; a bond-slave, without any ownership rights of their own [http://biblehub.com/greek/1401.htm]
1 Corinthians 7:22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant (doulos).
Hyperdulia - Etymology - Medieval Latin hyperdūlīa, from hyper-, from Ancient Greek ὑπέρ (hupér, above) + dulia, from Ancient Greek δουλεία (douleía, slavery), from δοῦλος (doûlos, slave). [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hyperdulia]
Catholics give servitude or enslavement to Mary higher than or above what Paul gave to Christ. Words mean things.
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.