Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
Read that sentence again.
"And, I suspect you'd acknowledge that the Roman lens and the Orthy lens are not necessarily more pure and holy than the Protesty lens. If you wouldn't acknowledge that, then the bias disease is well entrenched in your lens as well."
I can't speak to the Roman lens, except to say that at least for a good long while it was pretty generally the same lens that the East was looking through. protestantism was a reaction to Roman practices and what it saw as the theological underpinnings of the practices they found lacking or destructive. There was also a pretty healthy dose of politics involved. In the East, at least among the Fathers and the council fathers, you don't see that in the same way. Certainly there was and is a lens, but it is a lens which recognized the culture and language within which the NT was written, something which simply wasn't true with the 16th century reformers. For that matter, it wasn't true with +Augustine, whose own No. African/Latin background was very different from that of the Eastern Fathers and that shows in what he wrote. I'm not ready to say that the lens of the Eastern Fathers was "pure" or "holy" or even clear. They saw, "as through a glass darkly" but likely, because they were where they were and spoke the language they spoke and very regularly fought with the Emperor, and each other, that glass might well have been less dark than in the West and their scriptural interpretations less subject to "spin" than further West and later on.
So change your mind. Metanoia, you know.
Please see #11,512
It's not my mind that you need to change...
Christ rebuked a woman who tried to elevate Mary and redirected the woman to the word of God (Lk.11:27-28)
27 And it came to pass, as he spoke these things, a certain woman from the crowd, lifting up her voice, said to him: Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck. 28 But he said: Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it.What this says is that Mary is to be venerated along with other saints not for the physical work of childbearing but for the word that she heard and the Word that she kept in her womb.
Hmmmm....while I don't like to speak in hypothetical, what exactly would be your reaction if the Latin Church made Mary "co-redemptrix"? You know the Latin Church is very close to this.Of course YMMV, but for me knowledge isn't about being sure. So when you ask:
{Emphasis added.]
The declaration of 1952, which was about The Assumption, not the Immaculate Conception, made de fidesomething that had been discussed for around 1500 years, give or take. When you're dealingin more than a millenium, "close" becomes a pretty vague word, IMHO. When you say "close" and they did it 200 years from now, I'd be hard pressed to say you were wrong.
In any event, I think the opinion, understood as we (or at least, I) have discussed is obvious. If "co-" means equal, my confidence in the Holy Spirit's guidance of the Church leads me to bet against the Church's ever saying that. (I say again: the Idea of Papal Infallibility is not an idea about the Pope so much as an Idea about God's fidelity to the Church). If "co- means merely "with" then I don't think the idea is worthy of a declaration, unless they also make a declaration like "The sky is often blue." To me it's a big duh.
One of my non-Christian heroes is Socrates and I work really hard at not saying "know" unless I know. And I rarely know. That's what twisted my knickers.
Cute! And here it is LENT! Coincidence? You decide ....
14 ...Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression. 15 Yet she shall be saved through childbearing (1 Timothy 2)
Mary Said "let it be onto me" and then he angel departed. So, she consented. It could not have been otherwise.
Her work was the rearing of Christ, to her He was ovedient; Him she encouraged to begin His work of miracles; Him she followed around; Him she saw flogged and dying at the Cross; to her He gave us as children.
It is true that possibly other women likewise lived a life ot total dedication to their sons, saw them die an agonizing death and assumed responsibilities for their followers afterwards. However, we have one Lord Jesus Christ, and one Mary His blessed mother.
Of course not. You have to know Who the Redeemer is before you become acquainted with the co-Redeemer.
Oh, I suspect that in
THE ESSENTIALS,
Mary's motherhood was not greatly different than that of
Moses' mother;
Ezekiel's mother;
Jeremiah's mother;
Elijah's mother;
Elisha's mother;
John the Baptist's mother;
Joseph's mother . . .
1. There was plenty of joy and heartache for each of them related to God's uncommon call on their sons' lives.
2. SCRIPTURE did NOT foist Mary up on any pedestal. NONE.
3. There is not a shred of evidence from the time that GOD foisted Mary up on ANY pedestal. NONE.
4. The ONLY route Mary was "elevated" was through !!!!TRADITIONS!!!! and doctrines of men and of demons . . .
5. much as the elevation of the Bishop of Rome being elevated through political power mongering etc.
6. There's plenty of SCRIPTURAL warnings and exhortations to give folks more than pause for even thinking of such a thing. CHRIST IS TO BE ALL IN ALL . . . AS IN ALL in all. That doesn't leave ANYTHING over for Mary or any other mortal.
7. Veneration, adoration and a host of other quasi and literal worship terms and practices toward ANY one else TAKES AWAY what would otherwise be available for GOD ALONE. God is VERY clear throughout OT and NT how HE feels about such robbing of HIS Glory.
8. Rationalizations do not pretty the picture one micro-gram's worth. Idolatry is still idolatry whether it's toward a person, an idea; a system; a philosophy; a TV; a bad seductive habit; . . . whatever.
9. We all must wrestle with varying degrees of such. We win some, lose some if we are earnest in our repentence and resisting the enemy practices. But deliberately elevating any mortal even to "minor" veneration and adoration is AT BEST EXTREMELY SPIRITUALLY HAZARDOUS TO THE ONE VENERATING AND ALSO TO ANY LIVING BEING VENERATED--such as adored Pastors, counselors and the like.
10. It is HUMAN NATURE to make idols of everything and everyone under the sun without much excuse. Sanctioning such with a huge edifice of !!!!TRADITION!!!! and magicsterical pronouncements to assist HUMAN NATURE IN EXPLICITLY SCRIPTURALLY PROSCRIBED EVIL is beyond irresponsible; beyond aiding and abetting . . . Humans do NOT need to be ENCOURAGED to be idolatrous--it comes exceedingly easily and naturally.
11. Labeling idolatry something 'nicer' doesn't wash with God.
Labeling idolatry something !!!!TRADITIONS!!!! of men applaud doesn't cut it with God.
Labeling idolatry something spiritual doesn't cleanse away the evil.
Labeing idolatry something akin to the flag, mother and apple pie doesn't make it sweet and wonderful.
12. Sarah sought to give God an assist once, too--with Hagar. We still suffer therefrom.
Peter was going to help Christ with his sword and Christ rebuked him.
A hapless fellow reached out to steady the Ark of the Covenant and paid with his life.
God offered to meet anyone at the tent of meeting--they wanted a human buffer. God was NOT pleased.
GOD'S STANDARDS AND GOD'S GLORY ARE RATHER AWESOMELY & STRICLY GOD'S DEPARTMENT. WE DEVIATE AT OUR PERIL.
13. Giving ANY attention to Mary as a rationalized assist in reaching God or even reaching toward God in a more tangible humanly acceptable way is an insult to THE WAY God has decreed and provided.
14. Robbing God of Glory due HIM AND HIM ALONE is still robbing God regardless of the lace and phoney spiritual fluff it's all wrapped in.
15. Everyone in the family can tell a PC gamer; an alcoholic; a porn addict; a workaholic; a bingo addict . . . that they idolize their addiction and they will all vigorously insist they are not. I'm not the least bit impressed with folks' insisting that they do not idolize Mary when tons of their words; their voice tones and their actions SCREAM otherwise.
HOGWASH.
I discern in Forest Keeper a far more Biblical and kosher lens--Scripture pure and simple.
They saw, "as through a glass darkly" but likely, because they were where they were and spoke the language they spoke and very regularly fought with the Emperor, and each other, that glass might well have been less dark than in the West and their scriptural interpretations less subject to "spin" than further West and later on.
= = =
I could believe SOME MEASURE of that. But I'm fairly sure the implications and size of said measure would be different in my view.
. . . . through Jesus . . . INDEED, Harley
= = =
They:
PLUS, MARY, PLUS ALL THE MAGICSTERICAL HYSTERICAL PONTIFICATIONS; PLUS ALL THE FATHERS' . . . UHHHH BURPS . . . PLUS ALL THE ENCYLICALS; PLUS ALL THE RITUALS; PLUS ALL THE CUSTOMS; PLUS ALL THE !!!!TRADITIONS!!!!; PLUS ALL THE VENERATIONS; PLUS ALL THE CRAWLING ON KNEES OVER BROKEN GLASS; PLUS ALL THE GENUFLECTING; PLUS ALL THE ROSARIES; PLUS ALL THE RELICS; PLUS ALL THE . . .
Sigh.
Supporters yes, but he saw noa ctive role for women in the Church. In fact he suggests they keep silent and ask their husbands when they get home what it was all about. He makes it very clear that man is the head of a woman the way Christ is the head of man.
What this says is that Mary is to be venerated along with other saints not for the physical work of childbearing but for the word that she heard and the Word that she kept in her womb.
Wow. I'm shocked . . . shocked that anyone could believe that brazen leap of ill-logic and linguistic mangling.
So, if someone says, Blessed are you for buying a Chevy and Jesus standing nearby says--No. That's not the priority, at all. Blessed are those who walk in my footsteps.
That would mean that walking in Jesus' footsteps pulling a Chevy was the only way to Salvation? Right?
That's just as logical an inference as the assertion you posted.
Don't they teach COMPARE AND CONTRAST in schools any more? It's not really rocket science. Apples are Red but bananas are yellow. You think that banana is ripe but this one is riper. You think pine cones are wonderful but I consider them most uncomfortable.
You think her womb is worthy elevation but Christ disagreed and stated plainly what the priority FROM GOD'S PERSPECTIVE was and is. Rationalizing disobedience to Christ's point is not impressive TO HIM.
HEAR AND OBEY. HEAR AND OBEY. HEAR AND OBEY. Been the same throughout Scripture. HEAR AND OBEY. Was the same point in the verse above. Mary excuses to the contrary will be NO "out" on judgment day.
Yes it is my opinion and it is unorthodox. I do not see Mary in that verse. What I see is +Paul's unorthodox doctrine that it was all woman's fault. The sin was Adam's. That is the orthodox opinion.
with the co-Redeemer.
= = =
BLASPHEMY is not the least bit attractive, to me.
Certainly the Orthodox position is definitly that it was the "Sin of Adam".
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.