Posted on 04/01/2008 4:23:02 PM PDT by NYer
Yes, there is a difference between 'equal' and the 'same', and Christ said all Christians were equal, not the same.
So, how does that distinction help your case?
So in the case of the woman who calls out "Blessed the womb that bore you and the breasts that have you suck," (from memory), I don't know what YOU see, But I see someone who is implicitly distancing herself from the love and holiness (and blessedness -- a word the pronunciation of which some Protestants seem unwilling to reveal) which Jesus offers to all of us in Him.
I didn't use that passage, I used Mk.3:34-35, where Christ said all those 'who do the will of the Father, the same is my brother, my sister and my mother'.
But even in that passage, the Lord corrects the woman (the only time the Lord corrects any woman in the Gospels) and states that blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it (Lk.11:28).
Now, if you want to actually deal with those verses say and not just throw up some smoke, then do so.
There is nothing complicated about them.
Here is a note from the RCC NAB,
.....it emphasizes that attentiveness to God's word is more important than biological relationship to Jesus
Regarding Mark, the note in the NAB states
Against this background, Jesus is informed of the arrival of his mother and brothers [sisters]. He responds by showing that not family ties but doing God's will is decisive in the kingdom.
But, despite the tendentious leaning on the word usually translated as "rather" I do not think this text itself will unequivocally support the notion that all of us are currently equally OR identically blessed. What it will support is that we are all offered blessedness in Christ AND all challenged to avoid distancing ourselves from that call by adopting a kind of "poor little old me attitude, I'd be so much better off if only I were blood kin to Jesus" attitude.
Well, that is a nice little theory, but it doesn't line up with what the passages actually say.
Christ makes it very clear that the issue in the Christian life is following His words and Mary wasn't considered anyone more special than anyone else when it came to that issue.
One of the things I LIKE about hosepipe's disparaging of "denominations", though I think his contention is wrong in the final analysis, is that I think a temptation common to all Xtians is to keep putting something between us and an encounter with Christ, so that a Catholic might be distressed to learn that there was no Mass in heaven (since it is ALL Mass all the time) or Protestant might be upset to find no Bible (since the Word Himself constantly and intimately gives himself to all the blessed).
Well, there is no 'mass' in heaven since Christ only needed to die once and doesn't need to re-crucified over and over again in a non-bloody replication of that sacrifice.(Heb.6:6)
Christ did say that heaven and earth will fade away, but His words never will.(Mk.13:31)
The woman calls out her cry, and Jesus says to her, "You too, Lady. Get a grip. Come to me and I'll SHOW you 'blessed'!"
Well, He could have easily said, yes, lady you are correct, my mother is blessed above all other human beings but...' , but Christ didn't say that, rather He corrected the woman and made her see that it was His words that were the issue, not Mary.
But when you want to avoid what scripture actually says, any reasoning will do.
AS has been said more than once in this protracted conflict as and has been ignored without remission, Mary has nothing in the blessedness department that is not offered to all the blessed. Maybe different degree, maybe different sort of manifestations, but holiness and blessedness nonethe less.
And where do you get the idea that Mary is anymore blessed than any other believer based on her relationship to Christ?
That is what you are basing the special relationship on, the mother-son relationship, which Christ himself stated was no longer relevant once His own ministry started.
“An allegation that our devotions contradict scripture is one that I take seriously and I would like this slander to be substantiated honestly, or retracted. So far, al I get is more calvinist assuptions heaped on, — no substantiation and no retraction.”
You have had the scriptural subtantiation but you just don’t want to believe it, it’s your choice according to your free will. No retraction is necessary; just a difference of interpretation.
“The fact that Mary is chief among the saints comes not from her being simply “blessed”, although that she most certainly is, but filled with grace, “kecharitomene””
Well, Jesus was “full of grace” also, and we have received that fulness of grace from Him.
Jhn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Jhn 1:16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
God is no respecter of persons and that has no scriptural exceptions. Even Mary must appear before the judgment seat of Christ and answer for her allotment of grace.
Act 10:34 Then Peter opened [his] mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
Gal. 2:6, “(whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:)”
Eph. 6:9, “knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.”
1 Pet. 1:17, “And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear”
2Cr 5:10, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things [done] in [his] body, according to that he hath done, whether [it be] good or bad.”
Explaining Calvinism to me, or giving fantastic interpretation of the scripture is not subtantiating an allegation that there is a contradiction. The former, you did. The latter you did not. If however, you now admit that what we have here is difference of interpretation, then that is exactly what I ask, a retraction. So you understand now that the Catholic mariology and hagiology are consistent with the Catholic understanding of the Holy Scripture?
With the rest of your post I don't have an objection: yes, of course, Christ is the source of all grace and judges, as well as saves, Mary and all the saints.
I do not know what Protestant made such a claim, but it sounds like you are putting up a straw man argument.
What Christians disagree with Roman Catholics and their evaluation is that she was born without sin, and therefore equal to Christ in human perfection.
In fact, her 'immaculate conception' would have been a greater miracle than the Lord's virgin birth, since Mary was born in the normal way and yet without receiving the adamic sin nature which comes through the man.
As has been said, that' shows ZIP>
Why does it show ZIP-because you say it does?
I would think the fact that Christ made it a point never to call her 'mother' and in fact always redirected attention away from her would prove the point that Christ was making an issue of His words, not His family relationships, even with Mary.
And He makes everyone who follows Him equal to her (Mk.3:34-35),It can be argues that that is misreading, over-application, and sloppy thinking about "equal" v. "same".
And you can 'argue' anything you want, the fact is that nowhere in scripture does Christ make Mary anyone special.
That is a Roman Catholic myth built on the traditions of men, not the words of God.
Actually, they do admit, they just won't admit that it is wrong.
They view it as indirectly worshiping God, the same reasoning that they use for praying at the feet of their 'statues' (idols)
Am I "pure"... No I'm just as bad in my own ways.. Its the human condition I believe.. We all see thru a glass darkly.. EVEN YOU.. The way I see it is we all need clothes pins on our nose to stand each other.. "currently"..
They don't proscribe this.. THATS the point..
The Babalu Aye ay.. know an idol when they see one..
The post was aimed at the Bobalu aye ay NOT YOU..
Hands to my head.. with fingers pointing at YOU,,
wiggling..
WHERE? Seriously. Equal in what respect? They could all be, for example, equal in that they are blessed but not the same in that they were blessed differently and/or to different degrees.
Anyway, it would be a help to see where Christ said that, I'm sure I'll slap my head when I see it, ("Duh" moments are good for my humility) but I don't think of "equality" as a biblical "value", off hand. (That's from my Anglican, C.S. Lewis days, not something I picked up with myu Papist deviations.)
I don't see the need for a retraction since I never said your understanding was not consistent with the Roman Catholic interpretation of the scriptures. As far as the scriptures I quoted and the interpretation of them as being “fantastic interpretation of the scripture” please show by the scriptures where the interpretation is “fantastic”? Comparing scripture with scripture, the interpretation seems clear.
Paul in Gal. 4:4 does not even mention Mary by name or venerate her but simply says, “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law”.
Hmmmm...as long as we're listing the people who were "full of grace" don't forget Stephen,
Act 6:8 And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people.
It's surprising the Catholic Church doesn't consider him to be "without sin".
Romans 3 is an indictment against all mankind-Mary included. We all need a Savior just as Mary stated.
Ah, OK. This is important to understand: the Catholic practices and the Scripture are not in contradiction. The Catholic practices and the scriptural interpretations of some religious communities, yours apparently among them, are.
the interpretation is “fantastic”?
The idea that Mary and the saints are robots incapable of cooperation with grace is fantastic, for example, and it ignores the scripture that shows her very much as a God-loving, God-fearing, rational, compassionate person, and not a zombified victim of some spiritual rape. There are many others on other topics.
Bump to the rest of the flag list.
... is not the same Greek as in Luke 1.
Romans 3 is an indictment against all mankind-Mary included.
That is your interrpetation, thanks.
We all need a Savior just as Mary stated
Of course. That's Who made her sinless and immaculately conceived.
But she is not the One for whom all things were created, the Firstborn of every creature, and yet this is what Catholic theology claims.
[Emphasis duh]
Now you say :
I do not know what Protestant made such a claim, but it sounds like you are putting up a straw man argument.1000 Silverlings said it. (Mind you, I AM just assuming he is a Protestant. The way he badmouths sheep and goats, I think the evidence is good.)
Have I settled that to your satisfaction? Does it still sound like I am putting up a straw man argument?
Guilty -- in a way. You do not admit the authority which we hold proper to the Bishop of Rome and you ain't no Ort'odox. (Where I come from, that defines Protestant. I keep stumbling over the term being used as virtually synonymous with "more or less Calvinist" or 'Reform'.)
But, yes, you have denied being a Protestant and I slipped. I was wrong.
It's rather hard to argue with, "All have sinned and fallen short..."
Of course. That's Who made her sinless and immaculately conceived.
And that is your non-scriptural interpretation.
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.