Posted on 09/21/2009 10:14:12 AM PDT by NYer
Keep in mind that the ONLY reason we are even talking about the Blessed Virgin Mary on this thread is because the Calvinists bring her up reflexively to detract attention from John Calvin’s heresy.
Exactly right. It’s simply a diversion.
when those blathering are in high leadership positions, simply, yes
not too hard to grasp there, sport
The more desperate they are the quicker it gets brought up, on this thread it was in the first dozen posts.
****************
Yes, and although it is tempting to ignore it, one must consider the cost; those who may be influenced by what goes unchallenged.
Read Dr. E’s post # 100 for the kind of heretical claptrap the pope supports. Rome’s demonic error ridden organization needs to fall on its face and plead for repentance from its idolatrous ways.
There is no “update” arriving from the Holy Spirit, and certainly not to the ex-Nazi youth that leads this “one world government” beast called the Catholic Church.
My mistake, it is post # 160.
Read John 6 carefully yourself. Do not look at the party line. Then, after actually reading the text, ask yourself if it is arguing for a guy in a fancy bathrobe with a big hat waving his arms around and chanting latin (”I can play dominos better than you can”) and that somehow causes biscuits and wine to become Jesus. That is what we mean when we say the Catholic Church imposes its meaning and intent upon the text (isogesis, not exogesis), in order to get a result they need from the text. Shameful.
And, yes, I don’t think Calvin’s view of that matter is that consequential. What difference did it make in your life today? I can tell you the transubstantiation racket makes a lot of difference to a lot of people today when they think they are eating Christ’s body and drinking His blood in REALITY. Now, that’s heresy. Repent Rome!!
Jesus was suffering the “Dark Night” of the soul when He cried out from the Cross. Thus, “forsaken”.
Theologically, this is a kind of “hell” of the senses, in that the sufferer feels complete abandonment from God, which is the definition of “hell”. Yet, the soul is not in fact abandoned - God is most definitely close to that soul suffering the “Dark Night”. So, in one sense, Jesus’ human nature was compartmentally separated from the Divine - the most dramatic and painful “abandonment” imaginable when One’s own human nature is isolated from His divine nature. i.e., imagine the pains of hell magnified almost infinitely in that moment of despair on the Cross! Yet, the mystery is that He is never separated from the Father and the Holy Spirit.
Spiritually, speaking, Jesus took on all of our sins. ALL OF THEM. He was making INFINITE ATONEMENT for the sin of Adam. He may not have been in “hell” proper, however, he suffered the price of that infinite sin of Adam, and through that atonement made the curses of suffering and death sources of incalculable grace and sanctification instead. So, we have to “redeem” ourselves by applying to the graces of His atonement through repentance and confession of our sins - and receiving the visible sign of absolution that says to us, “your sins are forgiven”.
Thus, when we speak of euthanasia that “spares” people from suffering, we are actually robbing them of their own sanctification. Not that we seek suffering. Not that we reject the instruments God has given us to alleviate suffering. But when we take life for the sole purpose of ending suffering, we are insulting Christ, whose suffering and death made our own crosses the means of our salvation.
Did Christ go to “hell” in the vulgar sense? No. Did He suffer a kind of torment in solidarity with redeemable sinners in “Sheol”? I think it’s likely. Sins cannot be redeemed without a price and with such a price to be paid, I don’t think any of us can fathom what it entailed.
Every act of Christ is education. He IS pure act. He IS the Word made flesh.
Why THAT psalm? Why only THOSE words? He could certainly have uttered any of the other words of Psalm 22 before expiring, but His "forsaken"-ness is front-and-center.
Since nothing Christ uttered was frivolous, how can you pass that off as some random snippet of a larger discussion Jesus was trying to have before dying (and cutting off that teaching moment?). Jesus spoke exactly what He willed to speak. We can infer a teaching moment in what comes after these words, but we cannot trivialize what He did choose to say - "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"
Jesus was reciting prophesy showing it come to pass. He was not feeling as if he was forsaken and crying out.
What does the prophesy say, then?
"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
If He wasn't forsaken, then the prophesy didn't come to pass. Correct?
Are you saying it was unbecoming of Christ to suffer emotionally?
Well it's certainly not arguing for Dutchboy88 waving his arms around and chanting "Repent Rome!"
That is what we mean when we say...
Who's this "we"? Are you the pope of this "we" community, whatever it is?
...the Catholic Church imposes its meaning and intent upon the text (isogesis, not exogesis), in order to get a result they need from the text. Shameful.
"I'm startin' with the man in the mirror!"
And, yes, I don’t think Calvin’s view of that matter is that consequential. What difference did it make in your life today? I can tell you the transubstantiation racket makes a lot of difference to a lot of people today when they think they are eating Christ’s body and drinking His blood in REALITY. Now, that’s heresy. Repent Rome!!
I'm guessing, ex-Catholic? This kind of invective is usually associated with exorcisms and ex-Catholics with an immovable chip on their shoulders.
PING to 194. Forgot to include you.
It is like that old poster where there is footprints in the sand and Jesus was carrying you all along when you assumed he was not.
Rather, your response in 172 ignores the very verses. You never address them at all. Do you deny that the Bible refers to the brothers of Christ?
Because you have been given one interpretation from an institution of man, and told that it is the only acceptable interpretation, you will accept it. That’s fine; that’s your faith. But the Gospels clearly refer to the brothers and sisters of Christ. Only in ignorance or deceit can someone state unequivocally that the Gospels do not at least suggest Christ may have had siblings.
Hey, if you want to call pope John Paul II and your cardinals and over 500 bishops "catholic bashers," go right ahead. Or do as starlifter did and equate them to "Dan Brown."
It's not the first time the RCC offers different doctrines and confused theology and outright blasphemy to its congregations...
"we, the undersigned cardinals and bishops who have convened in the favored Marian Shrine of Fatima (May 3-7, 2005), wish to express to you, Most Holy Father, our united hope and desire for the solemn papal definition of the doctrine of the Church regarding Mary Most Holy as the Spiritual Mother of all humanity, the Co-redemptrix with Jesus the Redeemer, Mediatrix of all graces with Jesus the one Mediator, and Advocate with Jesus Christ on behalf of the human race...
Maybe you missed the many times pope John Paul II said Mary was the "Co-Redemptrix."
From Mary, Coredemptrix: The Significance of Her Title in the Magisterium of The Church by Rev. John A. Schug, O.F.M. Cap. and Dr. Mark I. Miravalle, S.T.D. John Paul II WROTE...
Mary is not the dawn of our redemption in the manner of an invert, passive instrument....Mary's participation was real and effective. In giving her consent to the message of the Angel, Mary agreed to collaborate in the entire work of mankind's reconciliation with God [Pg. 7, no. 4].[58] As she was in a special way close to the Cross of her Son, she also had to have a privileged experience of His Resurrection. In fact, Mary's role as co-redemptrix [corredentor] did not cease with the glorification of her Son [pg. 7, no. 6].[59] May Mary our Protectress, the Co-redemptrix [la Corredentrice], to whom we offer our prayer with great outpouring, make our desire generously correspond to the desire of the Redeemer.[60] "The silent journey that begins with her Immaculate Conception...finds on Calvary a particularly important moment. There also, accepting and assisting at the sacrifice of her Son, Mary is the dawn of Redemption; and there her Son entrusts her to us as our Mother....Crucified spiritually with her crucified Son (cf. Gal. 2:20), she contemplated with heroic love the death of her God, she "lovingly consented to the immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth" (Lumen Gentium, 58)...At Calvary she united herself with the sacrifice of her Son that led to the foundation of the Church [pg. 7, no. 5].[57]
Now begins the great rewrite, when the popes and bishops and cardinals didn't really mean what they wrote.
Sure they did. And do. And will, until, God willing, they are given God's grace to see their manifest error.
(I pinged FormerLib to this post and the really big red font of pope John Paul II's comment on whom RCs pray to, since FormerLib has told US that "we don't pray to the saints. To insist that we do is bearing false witness against us.")
So we come back to the question: what is the psalm prophesying, and why is it relevant to Christ, since He's the one who is chanting it, as it were.
No, but I am also aware of the following:
1. The word brother/brethren was used interchangeably with cousin.
2. NOBODY other than Jesus Christ is EVER referred to as a son or daughter of Mary. The Church believes that it is possible that Joseph had children from a prior marriage.
3. NOBODY ever identifies themselves as a brother of Jesus. James says he is a servant of Jesus Christ, Jude says he is a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James.
4. Tradition would have been for Mary's care to be entrusted to the next oldest son, our Lord's words on the Cross never address this possibility. The Gospel of John was written LONG AFTER the Resurrection and it says, "And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own." (John 19:27) Had James or Jude been her sons, why wouldn't she have returned to them after they became Christians?
But the Gospels clearly refer to the brothers and sisters of Christ. Only in ignorance or deceit can someone state unequivocally that the Gospels do not at least suggest Christ may have had siblings.
I've never claimed that this suggestion isn't there, all I am doing is pointing out the FACT that there is no suggestion that Mary had other children.
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.