MARIAN DEVOTION - Akathist Hymn to the Mother of God

Various ^

[topcat54]

What makes it unusual is its usage. It's an odd thing to call your own mother "woman."

Perhaps. But Jesus was known treat his mother this way.

While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. Then one said to Him, "Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You." But He answered and said to the one who told Him, "Who is My mother and who are My brothers?" And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, "Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother." (Matt. 12:46-50)

According to your logic He should have been more accommodating and made His mother feel more welcome. Should Mary have felt slighted by her Son's treatment?

[topcat54]

The woman who bears Christ in Revelations fled into the desert. The woman who actually bore Christ fled into Egypt. You don't suppose there's a connection between Egypt and the desert, do you?

Problem is the text of Revelation does not support your conclusion.

5 And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and to His throne. 6 Then the woman fled into the wilderness where she had a place prepared by God, so that there she would be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.

Note the progression of events; birth of the child, ascension to God, fleeing to the wilderness.

Unlike the story of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph going to Egypt, the only character mentioned in Rev. 12 in the wilderness is the woman. Rev. 12 actually matches the warning of Jesus to his church in places like Luke 21 that when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by armies they were to "flee to the mountains".

You RCs have to learn that you can't have it both ways. Either argue from the Bible or trust in church dogma, but don't try to mix the two cuz you'll get bit when they don't match. And then you are forced by your dogma to rely on your dogma alone.

[Campion]

Second, baptism does not infuse grace into an infant.

Obviously, that is not our belief. You can hardly expect us to be consistent with beliefs of yours which we reject.

Third, Mary didn't need to be born in a state of gace, she simply needed to be "sanctified" at the moment of conception. That is what the angel declared.

No, the angel called Mary "kecharitomene" -- already completely graced. I believe the verb form refers to an action completed in the past.

[dangus]

YAWN!!!
I wont argue the same point twice on the same thread.

[Campion]

Note the progression of events; birth of the child, ascension to God

Where in the Bible does Jesus ascend to God as a child?

Oh, wait, you mean this is prophecy and things like temporal sequences aren't always to be taken hyper-literally?

[dangus]

Prophecies use something that the people can relate to, and teach what that recent-past event has to tell about the ultimate ends of things. So, no, Mary was never swept up by an eagle, either. DUH. But Mary is the mother of Jesus. And her faithful submission to God is something we all must learn, and which the Church as a whole does. So when the church submits itself to God, and brings forth Christ, its experiences have commonalities to Mary's. These commonalities are illustrated in the symbolic language of Revelations 12.

>> Rev. 12 actually matches the warning of Jesus to his church in places like Luke 21 that when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by armies they were to "flee to the mountains". <<

Yes, it probably does.

>> You RCs have to learn that you can't have it both ways. Either argue from the Bible or trust in church dogma, but don't try to mix the two cuz you'll get bit when they don't match. And then you are forced by your dogma to rely on your dogma alone.<<

No, you are just too ignorant and narrow-minded to understand them. Ultimately, Catholic doctrines are so difficult as to require grace to believe in them. But in your case, ignorance and narrow-mindedness seem to be sufficient explanations, given that you can make a statement such as that. Good bye.

[topcat54]

"Second, baptism does not infuse grace into an infant."

Obviously, that is not our belief. You can hardly expect us to be consistent with beliefs of yours which we reject.

Huh?? That is precisely the RC position.

“The justification of which St. Paul here speaks is the infusion of sanctifying grace which alone renders a person supernaturally pleasing in the sight of God.” “But justification, that is, an infusion of sanctifying grace, cannot be merited by us; it is an entirely gratuitous gift of God.” (from the Douay Bible commentary on Romans 3 and 4)

And from the Catholic Encyclopedia on Justification:

The two elements of active justification, forgiveness of sin and sanctification, furnish at the same time the elements of habitual justification, freedom from sin and holiness. According to the Catholic doctrine, however, this freedom from sin and this sanctity are effected, not by two distinct and successive Divine acts, but by a single act of God. For, just as light dispels darkness, so the infusion of sanctifying grace eo ipso dispels from the soul original and mortal sin. (Cf. Trent, sess. VI, can. xi: "Si quis dixerit, homines justificari vel sola imputatione justitiae Christi, vel sola peccatorum remissione, exclusa gratia et caritate, quae in cordibus eorum per Spiritum Sanctum diffundatur atque illis inhaereat. . ., a.s.")

While in Baptism infants are forthwith cleansed of the stain of original sin without any preparation on their part, the adult must pass through a moral preparation, which consists essentially in turning from sin and towards God.

Someone needs a refresher course.

[topcat54]

So, no, Mary was never swept up by an eagle, either. DUH. But Mary is the mother of Jesus. And her faithful submission to God is something we all must learn, and which the Church as a whole does.

Now that a real YAWNer!

[Campion]

While in Baptism infants are forthwith cleansed of the stain of original sin without any preparation on their part

Did you miss this part? "Cleansing of the stain of original sin" and "infusion of grace" are two ways of saying the same thing.

The Council of Trent continues:

CANON VI.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify; or, that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto; as though they were merely outward signs of grace or justice received through faith, and certain marks of the Christian profession, whereby believers are distinguished amongst men from unbelievers; let him be anathema.

Someone needs a refresher course.

You do, in humility.

[topcat54]

Where in the Bible does Jesus ascend to God as a child?

The Greek word used in Rev. 12, teknon, is translated "child" not "infant". There is no connotation of age in that Greek word. It's a generational word. We are called "children of God" regardless of our age. See Act 13:33, "Thou art My Son (teknon); today I have begotten Thee."

There are other Greek words, nepios and paidion, used to convey the age of the child cf. Matt. 2:8; Luke 10:21; 1 Cor. 13:11, Heb. 5:13. These Greek words are not used in Rev. 12.

[Campion]

Maybe you just misunderstood what I wrote. Here it is again.

tc54> "Second, baptism does not infuse grace into an infant."

me> Obviously, that [i.e., the idea that baptism does not infuse grace into an infant] is not our belief. You can hardly expect us to be consistent with beliefs of yours which we reject.

Read a little more carefully next time.

[topcat54]

Sorry. From your comment I thought you were denying the RC doctrine that infant baptism infuses grace into the child.

[Piers-the-Ploughman]

I have already posted this on FR but

Martin Luther believed in Mary's Immaculate Conception and her intercessory power, and her perpetual virginity.

Zwingli believed in verneration of Mary (Calvin opposed even this)

The Greek Orthodox hold similar views as Roman Catholics.

But somehow 75% of Christendom was wrong for 1500 years until a few "self-taught" and self-approved "Bible scholars"
tell us that hundreds of earlier saints and Christian leaders were all wrong.

[HarleyD]

No, God was conceived of a woman, became man, suffered, was crucified, died and was buried. He was made man; his nature was fully human. He shared our genes.

I’m not sure what you mean by our Lord Jesus sharing our genes. Christ’s virgin birth needed to take place so that He would NOT be tainted with the sins of men which is passed on through the sons of Adam. With all due respect, women in the Bible are looked upon as carrying the children in the womb but there is no ownership. Since I’m not a reproductive historian nor do I play one on TV I don’t know where your emphasis on Mary carrying the Son of God comes from except the Catholic Church.

And I believe the Nicene Creed says Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit. Not conceived of a woman.

[HarleyD]

"...carrying the children in the womb but there is no ownership.

Before you reply, this is a dumb statement on my part. Of course there was ownership.

[A.A. Cunningham]

In other words He is not of Mary. She is not His mother genetically. He did not come from one of her eggs. Sure he came through her but he is not of her.

Pure scatology. You should change your screen name to bibleignoramus, Einstein.

"And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus." Luke 1:30-31

[don-o]

But somehow 75% of Christendom was wrong for 1500 years until a few "self-taught" and self-approved "Bible scholars" tell us that hundreds of earlier saints and Christian leaders were all wrong.

Yep.

Minor correction: the veneration of the Theotokos was 100% until the wreckers (off the Protestsnt Reformation) decided to throw out the baby, bathwater and the tub.)

And you can keep posting the same until Judgement.

And you will get, guess what?

Bible verses.

[A.A. Cunningham]

This shows that the whole idea and title of "Mother of God" is anti-scriptural

More scatology. Linguistic literalists like yourself have never learned not to apply contemporary semantics to ancient texts. Here's some free advice: The first step in getting out of a hole is to quit digging.

"And it came to pass that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost. And she cried out with a loud voice and said: Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Luke 1:41-43

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

I will give you credit for this. You are the first person on this forum I have ever seen admit that Sola Scripture is not scriptural (in that, there is no verse that explicity states that). That took guts, while I disagree with a lot of what you have posted today, I applaud you for your candor on that admission. God Bless