LOL! Superman underoos maybe, but never a scapular!
Posted on 04/03/2008 3:24:39 PM PDT by annalex
WHAT!
Can't you see what's on the very page? What does the story of the Wedding Cana tell us except God alters the divine plan at Mary's request...and she doen't even have to make the request formally!
I assume you're talking about tu es Petrus, and, yeah, that is a knuckle of the argument. But it's not all of the argument, from our POV.
It's interesting to try to find a mutually acceptable statement of the differences. Of course we don't think that Jesus is "First" and that that "firstness" includes a basic difference between Him and Mary. It's not just warmed over paganism to say that He is to her as Sun to moon: Without Him she is dead and cold, with Him and His light, with no other and certainly with none of her own, she lights up the night. And I say all that because to some of us it seems that you are saying we should take no joy in the Moon because it is not the Sun. While I would say that the joy I take in the Moon is finally nothing other than the joy I take in a great work of the Sun. I can praise the Sun without praising the Moon. I cannot praise the Moon, there would be nothing there worth praising, if it were not for what the Sun has done in her.
I mention this because it seems to me to be somehow emblematic of the difference not so much in theology but in the attitudes which our theology informs and represents.
That is very poetic. Well done.
"The Lord is my rock" (Psalm 18:2)
"And who is a rock, except our God?" (Psalm 18:31).
1 Samuel 2:2 "There is no one holy like the LORD; there is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God.
Just a few of many references to the Lord is the rock. Now here is what Catholics rely on to contradict that:
"He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
Now you can read this as either Peter is the rock. Or you can read it that the fact that Jesus is Christ, the Son of the living God is the rock. Peter is just a man. The foundation of the Church is Jesus, not Peter.
Nevertheless, denying the clear meaning of Matt 16:18 is as fatuous as denying the uniqueness of Christ.
You could say the same for many of the miracles in the Bible. For instance the lady with the blood sickness that reached for Jesus and was cured. It was her faith that Jesus responded to, not some formal request. So should we make statues of that (unnamed?) lady and say prayers for her intercession?
The church is the body of believers, not some factious beliefs in the infallibility of the Catholic church. There are so many versus which brings into question the 'clear meaning' of Matt 16.
Again, I ask this with all sincerity.
In the Marriage at Cana, Mary inrecedes for the host of the wedding before Jesus. She is also our mother as disciples of Christ, according to the adoption scene in the Passion according to St. John. She is praised as full of grace by Archangel Gabriel, and she is to be called blessed by all generations. She is shown in heaven combatting Satan. In that we enlist her help.
Also, perhaps you don't know that we don't go by prooftexts. It would be a problem is Marian devotions contradicted scripture. I don't think they do, and that is it. We do not need every prayer and devotion to be spelled in the Bible.
I don't understand what the passage in Colossians has to do with Mariology. If it is relevant, please explain how.
Do you think Elizabeth was feining when she was filled with the Holy Spirit and asked who was she that the mother of her Lord would come to her?
Who was she asking?
It further tells us to be on guard against being “taken captive†by hollow and deceptive philosophy which depends on “human tradition†and the basic principles of this world rather than on CHRIST !
Christ is not a book. The deceptive hollow philosophy is not the Churches, but rather those who presume on God. If He were ignoring your prayers, would you notice? I did. Now I'm a Catholic and set free from the law of sin and death.
You don't need me to tell you how vain quoting Scripture can be.
Hence, the term 'dark ages'. The beliefs of 'early' Christians should be considered, but the writings of the apostles are far more important.
I don’t disagree that the writings of the Apostles (at least the canonical Scripture) are important. But that is my biggest problem, and why I asked for some early Christian support for your position. As I’m looking around the Internet (which I’m doing now, when I should be doing work...whoops!), the interpretations of “rock” which match yours are all relatively modern as far as I can tell. I just can’t believe, if the “rock” was Jesus as you claim, that everyone missed it for thousands of years. Wouldn’t that be “the gates of Hell” prevailing against the Church?
A man given a new name by God himself. Do you think that was a mistake?
I'm not going to pretend to understand why Our Lord does things the way He does, but Jesus said what He said while ordaining Peter, and I'm not going to deny his clear and obvious intent.
I am glad Catholicism brought you to that level of faith, but it was not Catholicism that set you free. It was Jesus.
Find me someone God changes his plans for, then we'll talk.
LOL! Superman underoos maybe, but never a scapular!
Nor is this a mistake...."And who is a rock, except our God?" (Psalm 18:31). Or when Jesus called Peter Satan just a moment later. "But He turned and said to Peter, Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men." (Matthew 16:23) The foundation of the Catholic church rests on one no so clear verse. The rock is the Lord.
Moses negotiated with God, for one as did other prophets. Anytime God answers your prayers, you could say He changes His plans. Of course the ultimate plan never changes, just the minor details.
Only if one wants to deny the obvious.
Which is Peter was a man who denied Christ three times. Peter was just an infallible man. Jesus is the rock, the foundation of the Church. The body of believers is the Church. It was what Peter said the sentence earlier (Jesus is Christ) that was the rock, not Peter himself.
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.