Posted on 05/09/2015 7:44:31 AM PDT by RnMomof7
Millions of sincere Catholics wear the brown scapular thinking by doing so it will help them spiritually. They believed the report that Mary made and is backing a salvation promise in connection with the brown scapular hundreds of years ago based on their religious traditions. Over the years wearing the brown scapular has been perpetuated by sincere Catholic leaders, such as the one in this video, but it is in complete futility that it is worn. It is a false hope and a spiritual snare. 
It is not based on God’s truth and is, therefore, just as deadly for the sincere Catholic as it is for the Hindu who bathes in the Ganges River thinking his sins will be washed away in the water or for the Muslim who kisses the black stone of Kaaba to be forgiven! [The picture to the right is Mel Gibson, the director of the Passion of Christ, wearing a brown scapular as he smokes.]
I too once wore the brown scapular as an Ex Roman Catholic. I know what it is like to be taught something and accept it as truth to find out later it is not only unscriptural, but anti-scriptural. It hurts, but TRUTH is what we must stand on to be safe. It takes humility in such cases to turn.
NOTE: At about 2:23 time-wise into the video, the speaker is quoted below. How could anyone deny that Mary is deified in Catholicism? Surely, this rampant idolatry is grieving to the Lord Jesus Christ and God the Father. This is what Catholicism teaches about the brown scapular:
And so, wearing of the brown scapular reminds us, should remind us, of three things. First, that we are children of Mary. Second of all, that we need to work for our Lady. And finally, it should be a garment of humility and penance. First, by the brown scapular we profess ourselves to be children of Mary. The scapular of our Lady is a badge or a uniform so to speak by which we profess to whom we belong and who we serve. Likewise, our Lady in turn by wearing the brown scapular, she recognizes us as her children, as her special children. And because of that, she consequently protects us and watches over us. The brown scapular should also remind us that we need to work for our Lady because the scapular, which means shoulder garment, was originally that, it was a garment worn by religious in order to protect their habit, their religious habit that they wore on a daily basis during those periods of work to keep it from getting dirty, stained, from ripping, etc. and so therefore the scapular is a working garb. And so this should remind us that there’s no room for lazy piety. If we wear the brown scapular and we consider ourselves our Lady’s children, there’s no place for lazy piety but rather we should fill our lives with good works. This brown scapular should remind us the need to faithfully fulfill our daily duties, and to make another adaptation of Scripture, to labor as good soldiers of the Immaculate. Finally, the third place, the brown scapular is also a garment of humility and of penance. So in a spirit of penance, we should accept all the difficulties of our state of life and all the sufferings that our Lady may want to send us. And the scapular will give us the strength to do this. In all of our difficulties, we can always grab onto our brown scapular, remind ourselves of our Lady’s protection, her watchfulness, her presence and especially at the moment of death, when we can call to mind our Lady’s promise of salvation. Our Lady of Mount Carmel, pray for us.
* Not a single word about Jesus was mentioned there.
* The brown scapular is 100% religious mythology and idolatry, as Mary is deified as a type of Savior.
* No Bible light shines from such brown scapular Catholic tradition.
"...notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." (Interpretations of this verse vary, though I doubt that many teach that John the Baptist is not in the kingdom of heaven.)
Misrepresenting what we believe about Mary is absolutely essential to discrediting the Catholic Church. Always has been.
And it’s always the point where these discussions turn vicious and ugly.
Not spoken out loud... but do you realize that one born sinless and that never sins would be equal to Christ and therefore a god ... that is what made Christ God and man , that is why He could the innocent sacrificed for the guilty .. If we take The Catholic Mary seriously ..she could have been sacrificed instead of Christ
Book, chapter and verse please when quoting scripture.
We acknowledge Mary as being blessed as noted in Luke.
For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave; For behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed (Luke 1:48).
That's as far as the Word takes it.
We don't see the pronouns in caps in the New Testament writings.
Again, another example of catholicism giving Mary more than she's entitled.
Stopped reading right there.
Jesus started Christianity.
Catholics tend to not capitalize the word *Bible* either.
“Those that speak of “interpretation” blaspheme the Holy Spirit.
The word of God tells us that it is to be read, not interpreted. The Holy Spirit (if he is with you) interprets as the word is read.”
This is fundamentalism. It is an intellectual position shared by the Wahabbis - that scripture is divinely protected from alteration, and that every word is literally true. It is an act of faith, in defiance of easily demonstrable facts. It can lead to extreme conclusions, when logic and judgement are suspended, or deemed to be overridden by divine authority.
There are conflicts in scripture. There are varied versions. There are non-literal allegorical statements in scripture, like the parables told by Jesus. Translations between languages are less 100% accurate (Aramaic to Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English). There are timelines (like the flood) which don’t hold up to archeological evidence. Councils of people selected what was to be included and excluded. Meanings and usage change over time. If I were to note in my journal in 1970 that someone was cool, by 2570 a reader might think it miraculous that their body temperature was abnormally low.
You (anyone) must interpret words to comprehend their meaning. If you insist that you absolutely understand the scripture correctly, you are claiming to know God’s mind - quite a bit of hubris in that.
What if that bit about scripture is to be read, rather than interpreted, was added by a doctrinaire cleric hundreds of years after Christ, who was in tiff arguing with someone over meaning, and wanted to shut down debate? It is a circular argument to say that you must accept the absolute authority of a document, based on the document itself. So if that one element is not valid, than the whole fundamentalist approach to forming conclusions from scripture (AKA interpretation) would be without basis.
Ultimately, if your conclusions (interpretations) are not based sound judgement rooted in consistent morality, you can arrive at many harmful conlusions
BTW who did Jesus think was the most important person born of women??....UMMMMM not Mary .... Mat 11:11 Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than JohnI would've put this in my last post, but I only just remembered that according to Galatians 4:4, the Son of God was "born of a woman." I am not claiming that Jesus was saying that John the Baptist was greater than the Son of God, but it's interesting to remember."...notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." (Interpretations of this verse vary, though I doubt that many teach that John the Baptist is not in the kingdom of heaven.)
The citation was in what I quoted. I intended the ellipsis to mean that I posted the rest of the same verse:
Mat 11:11 Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John"...notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he."
I’ll try again.......
In post 135 you complaining that someone used the term *ignorant* in regard to Catholics.
That is ironic in light of the fact that Catholics have no qualms about calling others *ignorant*.
You have no basis for complaint when someone uses the VERY SAME TERM about Catholics that Catholics use about others.
Why would it be OK for Catholics to call others *ignorant* but NOT OK for others to call Catholics ignorant?
Could you explain the double standard?
Then why attribute to Mary the attributes of deity, godhood?
Thank you!!!!
Although you weren't addressing me, I'll try again too (if you missed it, my first time was at post #200).
These uses are not exactly the very same term: the "same" word can be used in different ways, some more "neutral," some more "negative," some more "positive." For example, if I were to say "Aristotle was ignorant of sex chromosomes," I am probably not trying to insult Aristotle. If I were to say "you are ignorant" to someone, I am probably not trying to make a neutral statement about that person.
(And again, please be careful about using that type of reasoning. Otherwise, "you have no basis for complaint when someone uses the VERY SAME TERM about ['Protestants'--or any other group] that ['Protestants'--or any other group] use about others." Having dipped my toe into the rich history of what passes for religious debate in our world, I wonder if all this could be a problem.)
Mindreading is against the guidelines in the RF, so expecting readers to do so isn’t proper.
Book, chapter and verse please when quoting scripture
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.