Ya, I misspelled it in the original post. It should have read the Stink of the Emoticon.
Posted on 02/15/2010 9:07:17 AM PST by GonzoII
The Scenario:
Ever have one of those days when you’re feeling full of energy and vigor? I mean, you’re feeling just obnoxiously happy? Well, this is one of those days.
Driving home from work, you switch on the radio to see what’s happening, and you tune in to a local Protestant radio station just in time to hear a preacher speaking against various Catholic doctrines concerning Mary. The show is called Pastor Bob’s Bible Hour. Pastor Bob proclaims: “Jesus knew Catholics would come along and begin to worship His mother and call her perpetual virgin and absurd things like that. But the Bible says: ‘Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And are not His brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all of His sisters with us?’ (Matt. 13:55-56a). And isn’t it sad, my brothers and sisters?”
Pastor Bob goes on to say: “Jesus dealt with these Mary worshippers in His day. In Luke 11:27-28, the Bible says, ‘A woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts that You sucked!” But He said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”’”
On a normal day you would probably just listen, take a few mental notes and drive on. But not this time. You’re feeling a little bit too saucy. You take the first exit you see and head for a phone. This is just one more reason why you need to buy that cell phone you’ve been talking about getting.
Step One:
(Excerpt) Read more at envoymagazine.com ...
According to some anonymous interpreter of scripture teaching heretic, that is. According to the Catholic Church, she IS the Blessed Virgin.
Actually it is according to scripture it is not Mary, but I understand that you must believe what the church teaches
NGR
Christ is God, unlike Adam. Mary is human, like Eve.
It's almost funny how you point fingers and make accusations, and then turn around and make "non biblical" statements as well.
Mary being the "New Eve" is not in the bible, it is simply a description of what Mary represents in our Catholic doctrine. Sorry if you find that blasphemous.
So tell me, if you don't agree with the Catholic church why not simply, not go to Catholic church?
We live in a world of Judaism, Muslims, Buddhist, Hindus, New Age Churches, Athiests, etc., why would you choose to point fingers at the Catholic church who acknowledge Christ as our Savior?
Is that what your Pastor tells you? Is that what your "perfect" interpretation of the bible tells you is right?
I have to ask, because a few years ago my aunt started going to another "Christian" church. It wasn't a problem until, she refused to step foot in her parents house, because they were "idol worshipers". My Grandfather, who was a saint, and dedicated father of 12 children, died heartbroken shortly after. My aunt's, has since changed churches about 6 times, and at this point she is finally more grounded. The whole thing was scary and unhealthy. I still don't know what happened to her.
And what rash generalizations would those be?
Voodoo came from Africa, not the Vatican.
Yes, and that is why I described their pagan gods as African. The saints that the practitioners of Voodoo, Santeria, Candoble, et al conflate these African gods with are Catholic, though, as are the practitioners themselves.
Any form of witchcraft, voodoo, etc. is strictly forbidden in our church.
By decree, yes. In practice, in the Carribean and Latin America, not so much. It's tolerated.
Your issinuation of some sort of relationship is ignorant and offensive.
You've taken offense due to my pointing out that your church is overlooking the occult practices of Catholic sects in the Carribean and Latin America, but that does not constitute ignorance on my part. If there is ignorance present in this exchange, it's willful, and not coming from me.
Catholics have been evangelizing the world long before the first Protestants came about.
In some instances, yes, but in most it was as much political as Godly, and was conquering territory by the sword.
Other than an inquisistion,
Oh, yes ... that.
the church has no way to force people, and nations, to rid themselves of idols and beliefs contrary to church doctrine.
Well, there's that little kerfluffle in England. France, too, come to think of it, and there's that little Conquistador thing, but other than that ...
That is exactly why the Magesterium is so necessary.
One wonders, then, at the aforementioned. Were they napping?
It is true that African and Native American cultures used saints to secretly practice their native Pagan rituals.
Yes, it is true that they did so. It continues to be true.
How can you concieve that the Catholic church, who brought the word of God to these parts of the world, and for the most part evangelized these cultures, would be at fault for their pagan origins and influence?
As I've stated upthread, in the Carribean and Latin America, these syncretist beliefs are quietly overlooked. I suppose it's driven by a fear of losing adherents or something? I find it baffling, personally.
We may disagree on how to read Church/Israel but I’ve never seen you say that your position is correct irregardless of what the rest of the text says.
That’s just plain scary!
“As Scripture tells us, Jesus was truly the Second Adam. The first Adam was a special creation of God (not related to any human being), and so was the second Adam (Romans 5:12-19). Jesus was just as fully human as the first Adam. And just like the first Adam, he had no sin nature, no inherited sin, no sinful flesh, which has always been passed from one generation to the next since Adam and Eve’s sin. He was absolutely pure and without sin—from the day he was born, till the day he died. He had to be—he was the Lamb of God, without blemish or spot, sacrificed for sins (John 1:29).”
http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/mary-motherofjesus.html
Ya, I misspelled it in the original post. It should have read the Stink of the Emoticon.
Do emoticons dream of electric sheep?
And thank you. We both were able to make the differences between the Catholic and the Protestant approaches to reading the Bible very clear.
I apologize for describing “wow” in terms that, while grammatically correct, take on an inappropriate meaning for the general audience. I did aim for the humorous effect, but meant no offence.
none taken, thanks
The literal reading in Catholic hermeneutics takes precedence over any other. If St. John wanted to say “Israel clothed with the sun, and the moon under Israel’s feet, and on Israel’s head a crown of twelve stars And being with child, Israel cried travailing in birth, etc” — he could have. But in this, divinely inspired, elaborately written text “woman” is used, and not “Israel”.
Therefore our first reading is that the passage applies to Mary.
Does the passage teach anything about Mary, the Church, and Israel? Absolutely yes. It is very often in the scripture that you read the text literally, and then you reach for anagogical and allegorical meanings. For example, when Christ caused the future apostles to catch an abundance of fish, it was firstly literal Peter, literal Andrew and literal fish. It would be wrong to say,— “No, it was not really Peter and Andrew fishing, because this episode is about converting disciples in the future Church and not about fishing”.
None of these supplemental meanings deny another. Once we recognized Mary in that passage we see what meaning is attached to her motherhood, and through that to her queenship. We see that she has a deep connection to all the children who obey Christ, and so therefore she is a type of the Church; she is, one might say, the mystical Church. The flight to the desert, and the return, and the vision of the stars point to another connection, that to Israel (the number 12 refers to both the tribes of Israel and the Apostolic college).
So no, when someone reads Apocalypse 12 and sees the Church or even Israel, the prefigurement of the Church in it, that is not entirely wrong, but it is selective reading of the Bible if it is the only thing one sees.
What was/is the church supposed to do? Have a witch hunt? Burn them at the stake? The only thing the church can do is try to protect the integrity of our doctrine within the church. Thus the Magesterium, and the Cathechism.
There are many pages dedicated to Idol Worship in the Cathechism. Maybe you should reference your interpretation of Catholic doctrine from the actual doctrine - The Cathechisis.
II. "HIM ONLY SHALL YOU SERVE"
CCC 2095 The theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity inform and give life to the moral virtues. Thus charity leads us to render to God what we as creatures owe him in all justice. The virtue of religion disposes us to have this attitude.
* Adoration
2096 Adoration is the first act of the virtue of religion. To adore God is to acknowledge him as God, as the Creator and Savior, the Lord and Master of everything that exists, as infinite and merciful Love. "You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve," says Jesus, citing Deuteronomy.13
2097 To adore God is to acknowledge, in respect and absolute submission, the "nothingness of the creature" who would not exist but for God. To adore God is to praise and exalt him and to humble oneself, as Mary did in the Magnificat, confessing with gratitude that he has done great things and holy is his name.14 The worship of the one God sets man free from turning in on himself, from the slavery of sin and the idolatry of the world.
Your selective reading causes you to "see" Mary. In fact you come to the passage prepared to shoe horn Mary into the fit when she's not there in the first place. In fact what you are saying is that on an allegorical level, Mary is a symbol of the church, which may or may not be true, but I don't think you want to go there.
Hermeneutics is not subjective. Like "feelings" and gnosticism improper hermeneutics lead to gross error, which we actually see happening here, as you insist you will "see" Mary the mother of Christ" in Rev 12 no matter what evidence is presented otherwise. Kind of like a detective ignoring all the evidence and convicting someone of a crime, just because he "knows" who did it.
No, I did not. I would say, and I probably said it many times, that the various forms of veneration of Mary and other saints developed when the scripture was already written, and so the scripture does not reflect any instruction to how, exactly, venerate the saints. Further, the lives of even the early saints have not even been lived to the end when the Scripture was written. So, for example, the assumption of Mary is outside of the scripture's chronological scope, although I see a possible reference to it in Apoc.12:14.
I would also happily "admit" to the Catohlic doctrine that the tradition of the Church is the primary rule of faith and the expression of the tradition that the Church chose to put in scripture form is a very important, but not the sole expression of Christian Faith.
We should make arguments based on the Scripture, when they can be made that way. The issue on hand, for exampe, is entirely scriptural: is the woman in Apoc. 12 Mary or not. I never called on any tradition or people's opinions to make this point. All I am doing on this is pointing out two verses in particular, Apoc. 12:5 and Apoc. 12:10. I am making exactly the kind of argument form scripture that Protestants say should be made. In response, however, I do not get anything on the same level. I am asked to interpet the adjacent verses, or I am offered secondary meanings of the passage, or now you simply want to discuss the Catholic doctrine about the scripture in general. I did not get a scriptural explanation of the chapter that does not also fit its apparent primary meaning, that it is Mary. All these secondary things are fine topics, but for a while to focus will have to be this passage and Mary in it, and I, for one, do not need any Catholic tradition to read it correctly. I do see, however, that my opponents start with a dogmatic belief that Mary cannot possibly be in that passage because your belief system does not agree with it, and then they try to make me ignore the plain scripture in favor of their opinions.
"Priest" derives from "presbyteros". It is true that it also is used on occasion to describe Hebrew priests, as in Mark 15:1.
It is also true that the words shifted somewhat and the usage solidified sometime in late antiquity. Hiereus in modern Greek and modern context means Christian priest.
The point remains that to never translate "presbyteros" as "priest" regardless of context is misleading, because in Christian contexts "priest" is the best fit. To translate "episcopos" as anything but a "bishop" is outright lying.
Verse 5 identifies the woman as mother of a son, and the Son is identified as Christ in verse 10, so yes, Mary is identified directly, all the metaphorical meanings notwithstanding.
Verse 5 identifies the woman as the mother of a son, and in verse 10 the Son is identified as Christ. So that is Mary. My mental conditions have nothing to do with it.
! Corth15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Cor 15:45 The first man was made from the dust of the earth. He came from the earth. The second man came from heaven.
Christ is called the second Adam, because he entered the world pure as did Adam , beloved of God, He began where the first Adam began, without sin
He was tempted by Satan in the same manner as adam (sins of the eyes,sin of the flesh and pride of life)
Romans 5:12-21 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned - 13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. 17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. 18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.
Therefore you read about an adorned woman, (and many times in the OT and in prophecy, Israel is referred to as a "woman")and so you conclude that the woman is Mary. The rest of the passage provides evidence that the woman is in fact Israel, but your indoctrination and subjective bias sees something else. Again, this is serious as it leads down the road to gross error.
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.