Posted on 02/24/2010 11:17:16 AM PST by Pyro7480
III. Mary is our Mother and Queen of the New Davidic Kingdom
John 19:26 - Jesus makes Mary the Mother of us all as He dies on the Cross by saying "behold your mother." Jesus did not say "John, behold your mother" because he gave Mary to all of us, his beloved disciples. All the words that Jesus spoke on Cross had a divine purpose. Jesus was not just telling John to take care of his mother.
Rev. 12:17 - this verse proves the meaning of John 19:26. The "woman's" (Mary's) offspring are those who follow Jesus. She is our Mother and we are her offspring in Jesus Christ. The master plan of God's covenant love for us is family. But we cannot be a complete family with the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Christ without the Motherhood of Mary.
John 2:3 - this is a very signifcant verse in Scripture. As our mother, Mary tells all of us to do whatever Jesus tells us. Further, Mary's intercession at the marriage feast in Cana triggers Jesus' ministry and a foreshadowing of the Eucharistic celebration of the Lamb. This celebration unites all believers into one famiy through the marriage of divinity and humanity.
John 2:7 - Jesus allows His mother to intercede for the people on His behalf, and responds to His mother's request by ordering the servants to fill the jars with water.
Psalm 45:9 - the psalmist teaches that the Queen stands at the right hand of God. The role of the Queen is important in God's kingdom. Mary the Queen of heaven is at the right hand of the Son of God.
1 Kings 2:17, 20 - in the Old Testament Davidic kingdom, the King does not refuse his mother. Jesus is the new Davidic King, and He does not refuse the requests of his mother Mary, the Queen.
1 Kings 2:18 - in the Old Testament Davidic kingdom, the Queen intercedes on behalf of the King's followers. She is the Queen Mother (or "Gebirah"). Mary is our eternal Gebirah.
1 Kings 2:19 - in the Old Testament Davidic kingdom the King bows down to his mother and she sits at his right hand. We, as children of the New Covenant, should imitate our King and pay the same homage to Mary our Mother. By honoring Mary, we honor our King, Jesus Christ.
1 Kings 15:13 - the Queen Mother is a powerful position in Israel's royal monarchy. Here the Queen is removed from office. But now, the Davidic kingdom is perfected by Jesus, and our Mother Mary is forever at His right hand.
2 Chron. 22:10 - here Queen Mother Athalia destroys the royal family of Judah after she sees her son, King Ahaziah, dead. The Queen mother plays a significant role in the kingdom.
Neh. 2:6 - the Queen Mother sits beside the King. She is the primary intercessor before the King.
The disciple didn’t take her to her own, but to his own.
/ignore
“ta idia” is an idiom in Greek, a word which, by chance, derives etymologically from this same Greek word. It simply means his property (it is a NEUTER! plural, and thus could not refer to people) or, in other words, his home. Another word that derives from that same Greek word is “idiot.”
You can never pry the idol out of thier hands ... Wish you could, but they cling to like nothing else ...
“”but you are so obsessed with Mary and defending her veneration that you do not even realize how you sound and””
Unlike you, I’m not a fundamentalist who is afraid to have such love for The Blessed Mother. I know that veneration that’s given to Mary is ultimately veneration given to Christ who created the humblest creature(Mary) . I can never love her enough as our Blessed Lord did.
“”You make the blanket statement about protestants not understanding typology “like the early Christians did,” as if protestants were ignorant of the church fathers or paid them no attention.””
You only use typology when it serves your personal non historical beliefs and ignore the Church Fathers when they disagree with those beliefs of yours that are generally modernistic and can’t be harmonized with united Christian history
“”I have quoted, for example, Athanasius, several times in regard to the sole teaching authority of Scripture and justification by grace through faith (alone!).””
This is typical protestant tactic that has been proven wrong because you don’t read Church Fathers like Blessed Athanasius in full of what their beliefs were.I am well aware of the writings protestants use in this tactic that they don’t seem to understand addresses the authority of Scripture,not defend solo Scripture at all
Here are some examples from Blessed Athanasius that prove you wrong.
“But what is also to the point, let us note that the very TRADITION, teaching and faith of the CATHOLIC CHURCH from the beginning, WHICH THE LORD GAVE, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian.”
St. Athanasius, Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1,28, 359 A.D.
Athanasius against PRIVATE interpretations of Scripture...
“But since they allege the divine oracles and force on them a misinterpretation, according to their private sense, it becomes necessary to meet them just so far as to vindicate these passages, and to show that they bear an orthodox sense, and that our opponents are in error.” Athanasius, Discourse Against the Arians, I:37 (A.D. 362).
I could go on with these writings
“”Nor was I saying that Mary was discarded as if merely a thing. But like the ark, which did indeed foreshadow her, she was simply the bearer of the Lord,””
The Blessed Mother was much more than a bearer,dear friend.
She is the New Eve , She is sinless by the Grace of God, She is a type of the Church daughter of zion etc..
More typology with the Early Church Fathers writings..
Mary the New Eve....
Old Testament Eve- Verses New Testament Mary
Created without original sin, Gen 2:22-25 = Created without original sin, Luke 1:28,42
There was a virgin, Gen 2:22-25 = There is a virgin, Luke 1:27-34
There was a tree, Gen 2:16-17 = There was a cross made from a tree, Matt 27:31-35
There was a fallen angel, Gen 3:1-13 = There was a loyal angel, Luke 1:26-38
A satanic serpent tempted her, Gen 3:4-6 = A satanic dragon threatened her, Rev 12:4-6,13-17
There was pride, Gen 3:4-7 = There was humility, Luke 1:38
There was disobedience, Gen 3:4-7 = There was obedience, Luke 1:38
There was a fall, Gen 3:16-20 = There was redemption, John 19:34
Death came through Eve, Gen 3:17-19 = Life Himself came through Mary, John 10:28
She was mentioned in Genesis 3:2-22 = She was mentioned in Genesis 3:15
Could not approach the tree of life Gen 3:24 = Approached the “Tree of Life”, John 19:25
An angel kept her out of Eden, Gen 3:24 = An angel protected her, Rev 12:7-9
Prophecy of the coming of Christ, Gen 3:15 = The Incarnation of Christ, Luke 2:7
Firstborn was a man child, Gen 4:1 = Firstborn was a man child, Luke 2:7, Rev 12:5
Firstborn became a sinner, Gen 4:1-8 = Firstborn was the Savior, Luke 2:34
The mother of all the living, Gen 3:20 = The spiritual mother of all the living, John 19:27
The Early Christians saw this very clear...
“He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, ‘Be it unto me according to thy word.’ And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him.” Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 100 (A.D. 155)
“In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, ‘Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.’ But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise ‘they were both naked, and were not ashamed,’ inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; s so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:22 (A.D. 180).
“For as Eve was seduced by the word of an angel to flee from God, having rebelled against His Word, so Mary by the word of an angel received the glad tidings that she would bear God by obeying his Word. The former was seduced to disobey God, but the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. As the human race was subjected to death through [the act of] a virgin, so it was saved by a virgin.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:19,1 (A.D. 180).
As Pope John Paul II once said... “Mary’s cooperation embraces the whole of Christ’s saving work.She ALONE was associated in this way with the redemptive Sacrifice that merited the salvation of all mankind. In union with Christ and in submission to Him, she collaborated in the grace of salvation for all humanity. No wonder Catholics and Eastern Churches have such love of her and devotion to her.
No, sorry. You are trying to sell me chaff mixed in with the wheat.
First, after reading them here, Athanasius, Justyn, and Irenaeus are still friends. John Paul II is clearly of another spirit in what you have quoted him to have said.
Second, here is the chaff among your wheat:
1) “Created without original sin, Gen 2:22-25 = Created without original sin, Luke 1:28,42.”
Luke 1:28 and 42 say nothing of the kind. What you read into them flies directly in the face of many clear statements of the Holy Scriptures.”There is no one righteous, not even one ... there is no one who does good, not even one.” (Romans 3:10ff.) NOT EVEN ONE.
2) “A satanic serpent tempted her, Gen 3:4-6 = A satanic dragon threatened her, Rev 12:4-6,13-17.”
Revelation 12 is about the church as a whole, from whom Christ the Son of Man was born and to whom Christ the Son of God was given, the two natures having become one person in the incarnation. The woman with the crown of 12 stars is thereby marked as the church. The symbolic significance of the number 12 being the same throughout the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation. Is Eve a personification/symbol of the church? Yes, she is. She is fallen, and yet believing: Genesis 4:1. Is Mary a personification/symbol of the church? Yes, she is. What Christian cannot sing with sincerity every word of the Magnificat, (Luke 1:46-56) understanding her words and her faith as being their own. We do this with some regularity in my own congregation.
3) “She was mentioned in Genesis 3:2-22 = She was mentioned in Genesis 3:15.”
No, Eve was not “mentioned” in Genesis 3. She is the primary human actor in the drama. She is the one to whom God both spoke and promised these things, her husband and the serpent being part of the audience, until spoken to directly. NO, Mary is not mentioned in Genesis 3:15. That is Jerome’s mistake and everyone knows it, including all the apostles.
4) “An angel kept her out of Eden, Gen 3:24 = An angel protected her, Rev 12:7-9.”
Mary is not the subject of Revelation 12, the church is.
5) “The mother of all the living, Gen 3:20 = The spiritual mother of all the living, John 19:27.”
To the first assertion, yes. The Scriptures say that directly. To the second, no. The cited passage says nothing of the kind.
So, the wheat you have offered me I will gladly accept, and already have long ago. But the chaff remains chaff. It seeks to glorify Mary not Christ. It twists the plain meaning of Scripture.
“”John Paul II is clearly of another spirit in what you have quoted him to have said.””
Pope JP II is in the spirit of Christ,those who disagree are not in the Spirit of Christ
“”Luke 1:28 and 42 say nothing of the kind.””
Yes it does!You;re reading from a flawed Bible that translated Hail Kecharitomene wrong in Luke 1:28
The prophets words were a foreshadowing of the Annuniciation. Gabriel called Mary Kecharitomene, which captures the essence of Daughter of Zion and points beyond it. Basically Mary is being presented in Luke I & II as representing not just the perfect embodiment of the virtues of what it means to be Israel, she is presented as a certain personification of Israel. She stands in as Israel proper, and the language used throughout the narrative suggests the concept of “corporate personality” which is part of Hebrew thought. There are allusions and types in Luke I & II which further support this (themes and structure in the Magnificat, allusions to Abraham to which this concept of corporate personality applies, Simeon, Judith, etc..). Also, this understanding of what Luke I & II presents about Our Lady is an interpretive key to understanding certain passages in a deeper way (for example Simeon’s prophecy).
It also ties in with themes in John’s writings and sheds light upon them. The thematic parallels between John-Rev & Luke-Acts are many so it’s no surprise that this aspect of Luke I & II would mesh well with John.
Kecharitomene is very important because(Luke 1:28), is Mary,s purpose ,it is Her essence and being in the divine supernatural order, the virgin from Nazareth is the “woman” of the Father. As the spouse of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:20), in the divine supernatural order, the virgin from Nazareth is the “woman” of the Holy Spirit. As the mother of the Son (Luke 1:31), in the divine supernatural order, the virgin from Nazareth is the ‘woman’ of the Son. The virgin from Nazareth, clearly then, is “woman” to all the three divine Persons who is GOD. She is aptly the ‘blessed among women’ (Luke 1:42). The Blessed Virgin Mary is the “woman” of GOD. The Son of Man never called her “mother”, not even once while He interacted with humans, because it will not be in keeping with His divinity or with the Oneness and Indivisibility of the Holy Trinity. The virgin from Nazareth is not the mother of the Holy Spirit and she, obviously, is not the mother of the Father
Luke 1:28 Uses the word “Kecharitomene: to describe Mary,s function,essence and being
The original Greek was kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle of charis, grace. St. Jerome translated it into Latin as gratia plena, “full of grace.” In Greek the perfect stem denotes a completed action with a permanent result. Kecharitomene means completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace. The Protestant Revised Standard Version translates Lk 1:28 as “highly favored daughter.” This is no mere difference of opinion but a conscious effort to distort St. Luke’s original Greek text. Had Mary been no more than “highly favored,” she would have been indistinguishable from Sarah the wife of Abraham, Anna the mother of Samuel, or Elizabeth the mother of John the Baptist, all of whom were long childless and “highly favored” because God acceded to their pleas to bear children. But neither Sarah nor Anna is described as kecharitomene in the Septuagint, a translation by Jewish scholars of the Hebrew Scriptures for Greek-speaking Jews in Egypt. Nor does Luke use it to describe Elizabeth. Kecharitomene in this usage is reserved for Mary of Nazareth.
Some have argued that this says nothing unique about Mary since Saint Stephen, just before he is martyred for the faith, is said to be full of grace in Acts 6:8. However a different word form is used to describe Saint Stephen. In the Greek the conjugated form of “charitoo” that is used to describe him is “charitos” not “kecharitomene” that is used in reference to Mary.
Saint Luke does not use Mary as her name in Luke 1:28 He Changes it to “Kecharitomene” this is a new name , and we all know that name changes in Scripture are significant - Abram (Hebrew “father”) to Abraham (”father of multitudes), Jacob to Israel, Saul to Paul, Simon to Peter, etc.
This describes her very essence and being.
Mary, is named “kecharitomene” - because she is full of grace-full of perfection
“” NO, Mary is not mentioned in Genesis 3:15.””
Yes she is,and the early Church saw it that way,so you’re modern idea’s are worthless
Again From Saint Irenaues...
“For as Eve was seduced by the word of an angel to flee from God, having rebelled against His Word, so Mary by the word of an angel received the glad tidings that she would bear God by obeying his Word. The former was seduced to disobey God, but the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. As the human race was subjected to death through [the act of] a virgin, so it was saved by a virgin.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:19,1 (A.D. 180).
Your ideas are so modern that even Martin Luther understood Mary was sinless etc
Luther gives the Blessed Virgin the exalted position of “Spiritual Mother” for Christians:
It is the consolation and the superabundant goodness of God, that man is able to exult in such a treasure. Mary is his true Mother .. (Sermon, Christmas, 1522)
“. . . she is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. . . . God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. . . . God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her.”
Ref: Luther’s Works, American edition, vol. 43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968
Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of all of us even though it was Christ alone who reposed on her knees . . . If he is ours, we ought to be in his situation; there where he is, we ought also to be and all that he has ought to be ours, and his mother is also our mother. (Sermon, Christmas, 1529).
It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin” (Sermon: “On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God,” 1527).
She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something exceedingly great. For God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. (Personal {”Little”} Prayer Book, 1522).
As Belteshazzar remarks, it is a neutral gender plural. It is not likely to refer to a house because St. John being a teenager was not likely to own one, let alone several. It is a reference to his surroundings as a whole.
First, here is a much fuller excerpt from Luther's sermon for "The Feast of the Conception of Mary," December 8, 1527, in FESTIVAL SERMONS OF MARTIN LUTHER: THE CHURCH POSTILS (Dearborn, Michigan: Mark V Publications, 2005), Winter Section, pp. 50-51:
________________________________________________________
Sixth, this is also the reason Christ would be born of a virgin through the Holy Ghost without a man. That is, so that He would not be tainted by original sin which comes along with naturally born people, born of a man and woman, as we have heard. It is for this reason you can say only of this Son of Mary what Elizabeth said to Mary [Luke 1], "Blessed be the fruit of your womb." For the fruit of all other women is tainted. For she is conceived in sin, as is said, from which stain she cannot become released, except when she clings to this blessed fruit of the virgin Mary. This happens, then, through baptism and faith in this same Christ. Thus she will be born again by another's fruit and she will have spiritual fruit from him. As Christ said to Nicodemus [John 3], "Unless a man is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." But He further tells him how this second birth must happen and how it shall occur spiritually. He says, "Unless a man is born of water and Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."
So also, for this reason you say what the angel Gabriel says to Mary [Luke 1], "Blessed are you among women." For no woman, in the past or yet to come is so holy that she bore the blessed fruit that is in your womb, since all of them conceived in lust and sins. The passage from David remains completely true, "Behold I was formed in iniquity and in sin has my mother conceived me." Every human child must bear this title with the single exception of Christ. Also free will must altogether be excluded here for no one can overcome his lust through free will, since lust completely devours man from his head to his toes.
Seventh, but since the virgin Mary is also naturally born of a father and mother, many want to say that she also would have been conceived in original sin, but these same people all hold unanimously that she was made holy in her mother's womb though her parents had conceived her with lust and desire in original sin. Some want to find a compromise and say that human conception happens in a two-fold way. The first comes from the natural joining of a man and his wife. The second conception happens after this when the body is attached to the mother's womb and the soul is then [supposedly] poured in by God the Creator. We don't need to say anything about this first conception. Nothing rests upon this first conception since the virgin Mary was also conceived this way after the common manner of all people. Yet it is in this first regard that Christ alone is unique. In this, He alone would be conceived in a special way, having nothing to do with a man. For it had to be that Christ would be conceived, as God and man, complete in all His members and for this reason it is noteworthy that His alone would be the altogether high spiritual and holy conception. But in the conception of the virgin Mary, since her body was made initially in exactly the same way other children are made, until the pouring in of the soul, nothing of significance can be tied to that. If her conception proceeded in that way, then she would have had to have been fortified against original sin before the soul would be added. But that God did anything unique in her conception is not revealed to us in the Scriptures and so there is also nothing here to be definitively believed or preached. But speculation concerning this will go on. One will think what he wants but yet he cannot make any article of faith out of it.
_____________________________________________
Second, here is another long excerpt of the last sermon he preached in Wittenberg before his death. It addresses the very point you are trying, but failing, to make:
_____________________________________________
Therefore, when we preach faith, that we should worship nothing but God alone, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, as we say in the Creed: “I believe in God the Father almighty and in Jesus Christ,” then we are remaining in the temple at Jerusalem. Again, “This is my beloved Son; listen to him” [Matt. 17:5]. “You will find him in a manger” [cf. Luke 2:12]. He alone does it. But reason says the opposite: What, us? Are we to worship only Christ? Indeed, shouldn’t we also honor the holy mother of Christ? She is the woman who bruised the head of the serpent.2 Hear us, Mary, for try Son so honors thee that he can refuse thee nothing. Here Bernard went too far in his “Homilies on the Gospel ‘Missus est Angelus.’ ”3 God has commanded that we should honor the parents; therefore I will call upon Mary. She will intercede for me with the Son, and the Son with the Father, who will listen to the Son. So you have the picture of God as angry and Christ as judge; Mary shows to Christ her breast and Christ shows his wounds to the wrathful Father. That’s the kind of thing this comely bride, the wisdom of reason cooks up: Mary is the mother of Christ, surely Christ will listen to her; Christ is a stern judge, therefore I will call upon St. George and St. Christopher.
No, we have been by God’s command baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, just as the Jews were circumcised. Therefore, just as the Jews set up all over the land their own self-chosen shrines, as if Jerusalem were too narrow, so we also have done. As a young man must resist lust and an old man avarice, so reason is by nature a harmful whore. But she shall not harm me, if only I resist her. Ah, but she is so comely and glittering. That’s why there must be preachers who will point people to the catechism: I believe in Jesus Christ, not in St. George or St. Christopher, for only of Christ is it said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” [John 1:29]; not of Mary or the angels. The Father did not speak of Gabriel or any others when he cried from heaven, “Listen to him” [Matt. 17:5].
Therefore I should stick to the catechism; then I can defend myself against reason when the Anabaptists say, “Baptism is water; how can water do such great things? Pigs and cows drink it. The Spirit must do it.” Don’t you hear, you mangy, leprous whore, you holy reason, what the Scripture says, “Listen to him,” who says, “Go and baptize all nations” [Matt. 28:19], and “He who believes and is baptized [will be saved”]? [Mark 16:16]. It is not merely water, but baptism given in the name of the holy Trinity.
__________________________________________
The citation, should you care to look it up yourself to verify my trustworthiness is, with footnotes included:
Luther, Martin: Pelikan, Jaroslav Jan (Hrsg.) ; Oswald, Hilton C. (Hrsg.) ; Lehmann, Helmut T. (Hrsg.): Luther's Works, Vol. 51 : Sermons I. Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1999, c1959 (Luther's Works 51), S. 51:375
2 Gen. 3:15. The Vulgate translates: “She shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her foot,” and the Roman church refers this to Mary.
3 Bernard of Clairvaux (1091–1153). The reference is to Homilia II super “Missus est” [Luke 1:26], Opera (Mabillon), I, 2, Cols. 1672–1678. Cf. WA 47, 99–100 for another sermonic reference to Bernard’s ascription of divine honor to Mary.
__________________________________________
What you fail to grasp or refuse to acknowledge, and this is the chief difference between the Roman magisterium and the faithful (and yes flawed) monk, priest, doctor of the church, and, finally, reformer, Martin Luther. Luther (as do all who are truly his successors) was willing to teach and preach as DOCTRINE/DOGMA only that which was surely and certainly grounded in the Holy Scriptures. At the same time he was willing to admit as possibilities other things about which Scripture was unclear as long as they did not conflict with the plain, clear teachings and did not cloud the central doctrine, justification by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Such things he left as "adiaphora," indifferent things, which one could believe or not according to his understanding and piety, but which did not interfere with saving faith.
Yes, Martin Luther was a child of his age, an age caught between the ancient and the modern. But above all he was a child of God and, often, childlike in his faith.
Rome fights - I say, fights - for the right to be acknowledged by all as the decider of all doctrine and dogma whether it is grounded in Scripture or not. And Rome clearly loves to call certain what is uncertain and, often, even doubtful or false. In short, Rome loves to instill in the human heart doubt about the mercy and grace of God. Luther loved to instill certainty about God's mercy and grace in Christ Jesus, certainty utterly, completely, and irrevocably recorded in the Holy Scriptures by the God who so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.
That is the difference between us.
p.s.
You said, "Kecharitomene in this usage is reserved for Mary of Nazareth." Not quite. It is also found in Ecclesiasticus 18:17, a book you consider Scripture, but we do not. So, you deal with it.
“As Belteshazzar remarks, it is a neutral gender plural. It is not likely to refer to a house because St. John being a teenager was not likely to own one, let alone several. It is a reference to his surroundings as a whole.”
Don’t put either words or thoughts in my mouth, especially ill-considered, anachronistic ones such as this. What is it about “idiom” that you don’t understand? “ta idia” is an idiom in Greek. It’s only possible meaning here is the “digs” where John lived, possibly with his older brother, possibly still with his parents. All of which is uncertain, and therefore not to be taught as doctrine or even considered scriptural, and certainly not to be pressed into service as the “sedes doctrinae” for something you demand be believed by all of Christendom. You try so hard to read into the Holy Scriptures what you want to find that you do not seem to care how severely you have to bend and twist the text.
But remember this, the Holy Scriptures are just that, holy. They are the product and province of God alone not of man, and not to be tampered with like so much human foolishness. They are holy ground just like the area around the burning bush that Moses approached with fear and awe. To Rome they are its backyard garden plot to be tended or untended as it pleases, planted with whatever seed its deems to be in its best interests to plant, be it wheat or tare. So, go onto this ground with your sandals on if you insist, but know that it is at your peril! And don’t imply I undergird your venture. I don’t!
Care to substantiate that by showing us another usage like this?
the Holy Scriptures are just that, holy. They are the product and province of God alone not of man, and not to be tampered with
Tell that to your hero fraudster Luther.
That Mary did adopt the entire Church is clear from Acts 1:
13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James. 14 All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
The spiritual adoption of the Catohlic Church is explicit here:
the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ
Love and read the Holy Scripture and you will leave man-made shackles of Protestantism behind and meet Christ in the Catholic Church
Annalex quoted me and then said:
“’ta idia’ is an idiom in Greek. It’s only possible meaning here is the ‘digs’
Care to substantiate that by showing us another usage like this?”
Ancient Greek, whether classical or hellenistic/koine, encompasses a little larger field than just what is recorded in the Greek NT. This is a common idiom in Greek in general. It means the “things (not people) that belong to whomever the subject is.” It can refer to one’s business or wares, one’s property or home, whatever. In this case, it would be translated very literally as “in/to [John’s] own stuff.” It would not mean those things that John holds in common with others, but that which is truly John’s, i.e., the above such.
I would address the rest of the eisegetical observations of Acts 1 and Revelation 12 you have noted here, but they collapse of themselves upon examination, and so need no help from me to do so.
Annalex also quoted me again and said:
“’the Holy Scriptures are just that, holy. They are the product and province of God alone not of man, and not to be tampered with.’ Tell that to your hero fraudster Luther.”
Sorry, I can’t do that. He has passed from death into life everlasting. But I would bring the matter up with him, were he still breathing. Why don’t you bring the same thing up with “your hero fraudster,” the papacy? For which accusation I have far better scriptural cause than you. For the Holy Scriptures are “ta idia” of God and not of “the son of perdition who opposes and exalts himself above all that is ...” Well, I’ll let you finish reading 2 Thessalonians 2 on your own.
To quote some of what you said, “Love and read the Holy Scripture and you will leave man-made shackles ... and meet Christ.”
I’m not sure what your point is ,dear friend? I was showing that Luther believed Mary was sinless and he believed in intercessory prayer to Mary etc...
Nothing you posted changes this because what is written is speculation that he thought otherwise and what he clearly wrote was that Mary was sinless.
I will say this though... Luther was psychotic ... one minute he would be calling the Catholic Church hideous names and the next minute he would be saying things like this.....
“This one will not hear of Baptism, and that one denies the sacrament, another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet” De Wette III, 61. quoted in O’Hare, THE FACTS ABOUT LUTHER, 208.
“”You said, “Kecharitomene in this usage is reserved for Mary of Nazareth.” Not quite. It is also found in Ecclesiasticus 18:17, a book you consider Scripture, but we do not. So, you deal with it.””
The usage reserved for Mary is unique compared to Ecclesiasticus 18:17.
Perhaps this will help you
http://www.catholicintl.com/articles/kecharitomene.pdf
The Greek of Luke 1:28 is kecaritwmevnh, which is transliterated kecharitomene. It is a Greek perfect,
passive, participle, literally meaning “having been graced,” which is from the active indicative verb,
caritovw, which means “to grace, to favor, to exalt.” The Greek ejcarivtwsen (the indicative, active,
aorist), which means “he graced us,” is used in Ephesians 1:6, and there it refers to our salvation, so we
know that the verb has a New Testament precedent for being used in a verbal form which refers to the
presence of grace in the individual. The LXX at Ecclesiasticus 18:17 (ajndri; kecharitwomevnw/) uses the
exact morphology of Luke 1:28 in the dative case but only the adjectival sense (a “gracious man”). Other
derivatives in the LXX appear in 2Macc 3:33 (the deponent verb, kecavristai, which means “to grant,
give, deal graciously with, forgive, pardon”); and 4Macc 5:8 (the same deponent form as in 2Macc 3:33
but in a perfect, middle, participle, kecarismevnhV).
The one distinguishing feature of Luke 1:28’s use of kecaritwmevnh is that it is titular, since it follows the
greeting cai:re (“hail” or “greetings”). In English we would say that it was a “title of grace.” The closest
we might be able to compare it to something in English is what the American Indians did when naming
their children with participles. For example, a child may be named “Running Dear” (because his birth
was associated with a running dear). In Mary’s case, since a participle is given as her title, we could use
the title: “The Graced One” or “The One Having Been Graced” and maintain the sense of the Greek. The
problem for Catholic theology, however, is that the connotation “full” does not appear explicitly in the
Greek word kecaritwmevnh, yet “full,” which is from the Vulgate translation “full of grace,” is,
theologically speaking, the quantitative reason why Mary’s reception of grace has been understood by
the Catholic Church as referring to the immaculate conception, since Mary is said to have received a
“full” measure of grace, which necessarily implies no room for Original Sin. Likewise, we receive the
same “full” measure of grace in Baptism, which necessarily eradicates the stain of Original Sin simply
because there is no room for Original Sin in the soul any longer.
To be less dramatic and informative, however, the Greek could have easily used a simple noun to
address Mary, but Luke uses this complex verb (perfect, passive, participle) and his choice to do so may
be to get the most out of the verb as possible when presenting it as a title. The perfect tense denotes
that
I wish you a Blessed Evening!
I meant to post this writing from Luther as well...
“We concede — as we must — that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?” Sermon on the gospel of St. John, chaps. 14 - 16 (1537), in vol. 24 of LUTHER’S WORKS, St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1961, 304.
It is, again, more than evident that you simply lifted what you think to be knowledge from someone whose own veracity you did not bother to check. In this case, you lift from the scurrilous O’Hare and in the previous from the highly questionable Armstrong. You are like the college freshman who, instead of doing the work of reading primary sources, simply lifts quotations from other authors and then wields them as if he himself excerpted them and knew full well their context and that he was ethically and accurately representing the original author, and then cannot understand why the professor has written a great big red ‘F’ across the top of his term paper.
In this you show yourself to be simply a repeater of O’Hare’s devious slander and untruth, whether you were conscious of it or not. I mean TAN Publication’s reprint of a two-bit 1916 propaganda pamphlet? You’ve got to be kidding. That is like citing Dr. Josef Goebbels’ propaganda ministry film, “Der Ewige Jude,” as a scholarly and honest documentary about Jewish culture. What is more than evident is that you have not read Luther and that you do not know what you are talking about.
Not only does surfing the web cutting and pasting not make you a scholar, it has shown you to be quite the opposite. You know the old saying, “Better to remain silent and be thought to be a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”
You wrote:
“Nothing you posted changes this because what is written is speculation that he thought otherwise and what he clearly wrote was that Mary was sinless.”
So, let me understand your reasoning. You quote (suspiciously) short clips of Martin Luther drawn from secondary quotations excerpted by others, whose context you plainly did not verify and the nature of the work from which they were drawn you probably don’t even know. I respond with long excerpts of Luther drawn from my own materials, authoritative, scholarly editions of his works, whose contexts I have verified personally, and the nature of the works from which they were drawn are identified and noted - and they are publicly delivered sermons, one from the prime of his career and the other his very last sermon - and you tell me that this “is speculation” that he thought otherwise. So, I have tried to be courteous, thorough, and ethical in responding to you, in citing Luther accurately his own public writings, and you say this is “speculation”? So, was Luther speculating on what he himself meant? That is what you said.
Are you serious? And you accuse him who you did not know and could not know, him whose writings you have not read, of being psychotic?
Or does the magisterial authority of the papacy extend to everything in the world written by everyone? Does Rome understand the mind of all people better than they understand their own minds? Is this what the “nihil obstat” and the “imprimatur” mean? Is your allegiance to Rome so complete and servile that you cannot see how ridiculous that is which you just wrote to me?
Pretending to know what you don’t makes everything you say impeachable.
And when it comes to Greek. I didn’t ask to be supplied with a cut and paste job from a Catholic website.
Let me ask you: Have you read Luther, any of Luther? If so, what exactly. Do you know Greek? If so, what are your bona fides? Don’t be bashful. Tell us.
You hold the commandment, “Honor your father and your mother,” to be unbounded by time for us in this life. In this you are right. Honoring of our fathers and mothers does not end with their death. But you stretch this commandment, and then apply it to the eternal Son’s relationship to His Father, and then the eternal Son’s relationship to His mother, Mary. From this you construct a theology of God, redemption, and intercession that you know as Mariology. In this you are wholly incorrect. If you want to go into this, fine, we can. But you construct from this what a Mariology, rather than simply taking at face value what the Holy Scriptures explicitly teach directly about God, redemption, and intercession, and from it seeing who Mary was and is, and therefore what is proper and improper to accord her in terms of honor. That is what is wrong. That is why you don’t understand Martin Luther and don’t bother (DARE) to read him yourself. You might just learn something.
Finally, there is another commandment, also unbounded for us by time for as long as we live, “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” Of this you are guilty.
“”You are like the college freshman who, instead of doing the work of reading primary sources, simply lifts quotations from other authors and then wields them as if he himself excerpted them and knew full well their context and that he was ethically and accurately representing the original author, and then cannot understand why the professor has written a great big red ‘F’ across the top of his term paper.””
The one saying someone is given an the “F” is demoniac and is hiding many sins under the disguise of thinking they are intellectual. Also,You have done nothing to refute the quotes of Luther
“”Not only does surfing the web cutting and pasting not make you a scholar, it has shown you to be quite the opposite””
Thank You!I know I’m doing the Lords work when statements like this come from someone like you.Anyone who thinks of themselves as a scholar is prideful and the furthest away from Christ like the pharisees were.
I know people who have the difficulty spelling simple words who are more like Christ than the so called sickening self professing scholars-REAL Christians know the need of the poor ,sick and needy.The so-called scholars know the need of their self delusional minds.
So, you get caught in presumption and falsehood and I’m a “demoniac,” “hiding many sins under the disguise of ...,” “prideful,” “furthest away from Christ like the pharisees,” “self-delusional,” and, by inference, not to be numbered among “REAL Christians.”
Having said this, you conclude:”Thank You!I know I’m doing the Lords work when statements like this come from someone like you”?
“... someone like you.” Yes, you know me about as well as you know Martin Luther or Greek. And still you so easily can pronounce judgment over my character and faith.
Read over what you said again in a few days and see if you still agree with yourself.
“”So, you get caught in presumption and falsehood””
Nonsense!Luther is all over the place in his theology,it’s a sign of a split mind or some kind of mental illness and demoniac influence.
The late Fr William Most (a humble man and REAL Scholar) did a good piece on Luther,your hero.
From Fr William Most’s Theological Library
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=113
“First, justification: Luther thought that a sinner who is forgiven is still totally corrupt, unable to get away from sinning constantly. Did St. Paul mean that? Not really. He spoke of Christians as a “new creation” (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). They are made over from scratch - not at all the same as the same old total corruption! And he says more than once that we are the Temple of the Holy Spirit, who lives in us as in a temple (1 Cor 3:17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16). Can we imagine the Holy Spirit living in a temple that is total corruption?
Even more telling, if possible, is the idea St. Paul has of faith. Luther did not even make a good try at finding out what St. Paul meant by that word. He just assumed what appealed to his scrupulous fears and said faith meant confidence the merits of Christ apply to me. But there is an obvious way to find out what St. Paul really meant by faith — read every place where Paul uses the word faith, and related words — we can use a Concordance to locate them - keep notes, and add them up. If we do that here is what we get: “If God speaks a truth, faith requires that we believe it in our minds (cf. 1 Ths 2:13; 2 Cor 5:7). If God makes a promise, faith requires that we be confident He will keep it (cf. Gal 5:5; Rom 5:1). If God tells us to do something, we must obey (cf. Rom 1:5; 6:16). All this is to be done in love (Gal 5:6). (Obeying does not earn salvation, but we must be members of Christ and like Him, obedient unto death: Rom 5:19).
How does that compare with just being confident the merits of Christ apply to you? Quite a difference. So, by his own standard, Luther’s church has fallen. What he thought was a great discovery was just a great mistake. And yet his whole system stands or falls on his error, as he himself said.” -Fr William Most
What Luther failed to understand is the damage of original sin done by Adam and his descendants did not involve a total depravity. Fallen man can do naturally good acts though such have no salvific value. It is supernaturally good acts done in union with Christ by man living in the state of grace (his soul divinized by sanctifying grace) that merit the reward of heaven. Faith and good works done in charity (real love of God and neighbor)are necessary for salvation. It is the traditional Faith of the Catholic Church which informs us regarding the necessity of faith and good works, and the good works are those so beautifully manifested in the lives of all the Saints of the Church who cooperated with the graces they received especially through the Sacraments of the Church
I have nothing further to say to you on Luther and the deformation.They both failures.
I now await the puffing yourself up with self proclaimed “scholarly” special knowledge that only you seem to have.
Adios!
Still reading about Luther rather than reading him, I see.
Yes, well, the great scholar Fr. Most: “Luther thought that a sinner who is forgiven is still totally corrupt, unable to get away from sinning constantly.” This is what is called a false dichotomy. For those from Rio Linda, that means a way to rig the debate before it begins. It’s kind of like handing the other guy a loaded pair of dice. Only someone either ignorant (he did it without understanding) or unethical would do such a thing. Enough. You’re not going to listen anyway.
So, of the attempt of the counterintuitively named Most to gainsay (and that’s all it is ... and this is REAL scholarship, huh?) and your attempt to regain lost ground, I simply quote you to yourself: “They both failures.”
But in one thing you are correct, there is nothing left to say between us. You refuse to listen or reason together. That is your right on Free Republic. But just remember, I criticized the substance of what you said. You leapt quickly to judgment of me personally, and continue to do so. 1) I thought you weren’t supposed to do that on FR. 2) The “ad hominem” attack is the last move of the debater who has lost the substance of the debate. 3) Jesus really did say something about this in Matthew 7:1-5. But who cares what is said, right? Or what anything means? It only matters what you think.
So, yes, adios, which translated is of course, “[go] with God.” Indeed, may He be gracious to you for the sake of the One who “after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.” (Hebrews 10:12-14)
Nice!
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.