Pope highlights Mary's role as 'woman of the apocalypse'

Rome, Italy, Dec 8, 2011 / 04:28 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Pope Benedict XVI reflected on the biblical description of a “woman clothed with the sun” in his remarks at Rome's Spanish Steps on the 2011 Feast of the Immaculate Conception.

“What is the meaning of this image? It represents the Church and Our Lady at the same time,” the Pope told the crowd assembled before the nearby statue commemorating the 1854 definition of Mary's Immaculate Conception. “Before all, the 'woman' of the apocalypse is Mary herself.”

The 12th chapter of the Biblical Apocalypse – also known as the Book of Revelation – describes the glorification and persecution of “a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.”

Though not named, this woman is described as the mother of the Messiah. In poetic language akin to the Bible's other prophetic books, Saint John says she faced the threat of “a huge red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns,” and “fled into the desert where she had a place prepared by God.”

Pope Benedict, offering white roses in his traditional yearly act of Marian veneration, gave listeners his insight into the connection between the Virgin Mary and the Church – portrayed in the Apocalypse through the single image of the sun-clad woman.

“She appears 'clothed in sunlight,' that is, clothed in God,” observed the Pope. “The Virgin Mary is in fact completely surrounded by the light of God and lives in God … The 'Immaculate One' reflects with all of her person the light of the 'sun' which is God.”

“Besides representing Our Lady, this sign personifies the Church, the Christian community of all times,” he continued.

The Church, he explained, is “pregnant, in the sense that she carries Christ” and “must give birth to him to the world.”

“This is the labor of the pilgrim Church on earth, that in the midst of the consolations of God and the persecutions of the world, she must bring Christ to men.”

Because the Church continues to bring Jesus into the world, Pope Benedict said, it “finds opposition in a ferocious adversary,” symbolized in scripture by the “dragon” that has “tried in vain to devour Jesus,” and now “directs his attacks against the woman – the Church – in the desert of the world.”

“But in every age the Church is supported by the light and the strength of God,” the Pope said. “She is nurtured in the desert with the bread of his word and the Holy Eucharist.”

“And in this way, in every tribulation, through all of the trials that she finds in the course of the ages and in the different parts of the world, the Church suffers persecution, but comes out the victor.”

Pope Benedict said the Church should not fear persecution, which is bound to arise, but will be defeated.

“The only pitfall of which the Church can and must be afraid is the sin of her members,” he warned, highlighting the key difference between the Church and the woman who is its prototype.

“While in fact Mary is immaculate – free from every stain of sin – the Church is holy, but at the same time marked by our sins.”

While sinless herself, Mary remains in solidarity with the Church struggling against sin.

“That is why the people of God, pilgrims in time, turn to their heavenly mother and ask for her help,” explained Pope Benedict.

He stressed the world's need for the hope brought by the “woman clothed with the sun” – “especially in this difficult moment for Italy, for Europe and for different parts of the world.”

“May Mary help us to see that there is a light beyond the veil of fog that appears to envelop reality,” he declared.

“For this also we, especially on this day, never cease to ask with filial trust for her help: 'O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to you.'”

Perhaps this might help you?

Priest

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12406a.htm
Excerpts..

This word (etymologically “elder”, from presbyteros, presbyter) has taken the meaning of “sacerdos”, from which no substantive has been formed in various modern languages (English, French, German). The priest is the minister of Divine worship, and especially of the highest act of worship, sacrifice. In this sense, every religion has its priests, exercising more or less exalted sacerdotal functions as intermediaries between man and the Divinity (cf. Hebrews 5:1: “for every high priest taken from among men, is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins”). In various ages and countries we find numerous and important differences: the priest properly so called may be assisted by inferior ministers of many kinds; he may belong to a special class or caste, to a clergy, or else may be like other citizens except in what concerns his sacerdotal functions; he may be a member of a hierarchy, or, on the contrary, may exercise an independent priesthood (e.g. Melchisedech, Hebrews 7:1-33); lastly, the methods of recruiting the ministers of worship, the rites by which they receive their powers, the authority that establishes them, may all differ. But, amid all these accidental differences, one fundamental idea is common to all religions: the priest is the person authoritatively appointed to do homage to God in the name of society, even the primitive society of the family (cf. Job 1:5), and to offer Him sacrifice (in the broad, but especially in the strict sense of the word). Omitting further discussion of the general idea of the priesthood, and neglecting all reference to pagan worship, we may call attention to the organization among the people of God of a Divine service with ministers properly so-called: the priests, the inferior clergy, the Levites, and at their head the high-priest. We know the detailed regulations contained in Leviticus as to the different sacrifices offered to God in the Temple at Jerusalem, and the character and duty of the priests and Levites. Their ranks were recruited, in virtue not of the free choice of individuals, but of descent in the tribe of Levi (especially the family of Aaron), which had been called by God to His ritual service to the exclusion of all others. The elders (presbyteroi) formed a kind of council, but had no sacerdotal power; it was they who took counsel with the chief priests to capture Jesus (Matthew 26:3). It is this name presbyter (elder) which has passed into the Christian speech to signify the minister of Divine service, the priest.

The Christian law also has necessarily its priesthood to carry out the Divine service, the principal act of which is the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the figure and renewal of that of Calvary. This priesthood has two degrees: the first, total and complete, the second an incomplete participation of the first. The first belongs to the bishop. The bishop is truly a priest (sacerdos), and even a high-priest; he has chief control of the Divine worship (sacrorum antistes), is the president of liturgical meetings; he has the fullness of the priesthood, and administers all the sacraments. The second degree belongs to the priest (presbyter), who is also a sacerdos, but of the second rank (”secundi sacerdotes” Innocent I ad Eugub.); by his priestly ordination he receives the power to offer sacrifice (i.e. to celebrate the Eucharist), to forgive sins, to bless, to preach, to sanctify, and in a word to fulfil the non-reserved liturgical duties or priestly functions. In the exercise of these functions, however, he is subject to the authority of the bishop to whom he has promised canonical obedience; in certain cases even he requires not only authorization, but real jurisdiction, particularly to forgive sins and to take care of souls. Moreover, certain acts of the sacerdotal power, affecting the society of which the bishop is the head, are reserved to the latter — e.g. confirmation, the final rite of Christian initiation, ordination, by which the ranks of the clergy are recruited, and the solemn consecration of new temples to God. Sacerdotal powers are conferred on priests by priestly ordination, and it is this ordination which puts them in the highest rank of the hierarchy after the bishop.

As the word sacerdos was applicable to both bishops and priests, and one became a presbyter only by sacerdotal ordination, the word presbyter soon lost its primitive meaning of “ancient” and was applied only to the minister of worship and of the sacrifice (hence our priest). Originally, however, the presbyteri were the members of the high council which, under the presidency of the bishop, administered the affairs of the local church. Doubtless in general these members entered the presbyterate only by the imposition of hands which made them priests; however, that there could be, and actually were presbyteri who were not priests, is seen from canons 43-47 of Hippolytus (cf. Duchesne, “Origines du culte chretien”, append.), which show that some of those who had confessed the Faith before the tribunals were admitted into the presbyterium without ordination. These exceptions were, however, merely isolated instances, and from time immemorial ordination has been the sole manner of recruiting the presbyteral order. The documents of antiquity show us the priests as the permanent council, the auxiliaries of the bishop, whom they surround and aid in the solemn functions of Divine Worship. When the bishop is absent, he is replaced by a priest, who presides in his name over the liturgical assembly. The priests replace him especially in the different parts of the diocese, where they are stationed by him; here they provide for the Divine Service, as the bishop does in the episcopal city, except that certain functions are reserved to the latter, and the others are performed with less liturgical solemnity. As the churches multiplied in the country and towns, the priests served them with a permanent title, becoming rectors or titulars. Thus, the bond uniting such priests to the cathedral church gradually became weaker, whereas it grew stronger in the case of those who served in the cathedral with the bishop (i.e. the canons); at the same time the lower clergy tended to decrease in number, inasmuch as the clerics passed through the inferior orders only to arrive at the sacerdotal ordination, which was indispensable for the administration of the churches and the exercise of a useful ministry among the faithful. Hence ordinarily the priest was not isolated, but was regularly attached to a definite church or connected with a cathedral. Accordingly, the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIII, cap. xvi, renewing canon vi of Chalcedon) desires bishops not to ordain any clerics but those necessary or useful to the church or ecclesiastical establishment to which they are to be attached and which they are to serve.

The heresy of Core? Everyone can read the appropriate chapter in Numbers and see that Jude is warning against exactly what the Self Worshipers pretend is the proper interpretation of His Word. Like it or not, there is a legtimate priesthood appointed over believers according to the authority delegated to the Apostles by Christ. God the Father Himself struck Core and his followers down for claiming that such a priesthood was not valid when Moses appointed them and Jude warns us not to make the same mistake by claiming that the Apostles have no right to appoint such a priesthood. It's clear, under the New Covenant there are those who are appointed to be our shepherds and the Bible clearly says we are to obey them and follow them. It also specifies a different and higher standard for bringing accusations against them, something that makes it still more clear that they are somewhat set apart from the sheep as the shepherd always is.

Twisting Scripture and the understanding of Scripture? What about the word, "adoration", for example, that had no association whatsoever with worship until long, long, after even the KJV of the Bible was translated? Somehow when those who define themselves as anti-Catholic first and Christian a distant second want to tell their lies they claim adoration is the same as worship and apply Scripture related to worship as they wish. Is it just fine to pick the recent one hundred year old definition for "adoration" or would honest Christians admit that unless you go with that recent definition there's no worship involved when people pray to Mary? Where in Scriptures does it instruct the reader when to pick one word from a sentence and use a definition from two thousand years ago, but that the next word should use a definition that has only been added to a word a hundred years ago? Is that done based purely at the discretion of the party recounting comic strip yarns or is there a separate decoder ring similar to the decoder ring that goes along with the Escape & Evasion fantasy? And what about the special decoder ring that shows it's fine to call Christ Himself a liar or to say that Christ incarnate was so stupid He could not say what He meant? Is that a third decoder ring, or is there in a "Self-Alone Heresy Slide Rule' with multiple functions available for $10.99 and twenty box tops from boxes of YOPIOS?

The only people who are twisting anything are the same ones who migrate which time frame they use for their definitions depending on what they have already decided the Scriptures should say rather than ever bothering to even try and understand what Scriptures do say. Such folks always twist everything to fit into their own personal religion of Self. There's no need to answer or debate things that have been clearly understood, defined, and taught for thousands of years. Only those who are trying to spin their own new heresy or convince others to go along with an old heresy pretend that the Truth hasn't been known ever since Christ built His Church on the Apostles thousands of years ago. Unless someone is calling Christ and the Holy Spirit both liars by saying they could not keep the Truth intact and Wycliffe and the other heretics did what Christ and the Holy Spirit couldn't do, there is nothing to debate that isn't settled and easily understood by those who are seeking the Truth. Only those who are seeking entertainment and self-gratification refuse to accept what the Scripture clearly says and intead preach their substitutions, distortions, and reinterpretations to others in hopes of getting a few postive strokes for vastly inflated ego.

The "Sola Yourselfa" crew can pretend to have some valid approach to interpretation all they like but such folks are only fooling themselves. They have no consistent approach to Scripture other than consistently twisting Scripture to fit their own preconceived religion of Self. It is interesting to watch the Self Alone crowd make fools of themselves by contradicting themselves and begging others to disobey the Scriptures by tossing them pearls they can then mutilate and deface. Such folks are obviously given over to a reprobate mind and cannot understand the Scriptures and never will understand the Scriptures until they surrender to Christ, take up their cross, and follow Christ rather than their own pride.

“”Clement I is assumed to be written c. 80 AD.””

Dear Friend,If you want to be technical, we can assume many things about many books of the Bible of what and if they are authentic since we only have scraps in many cases.

You’re relying on the catholic/orthodox traditions to authenticate many things in the Bible whether you like it or not

Anyway, there is a theme of continuity in Saint Clement’s writings with others writing and traditions of that time period that certainly gives reason to assume them credible.

Here is a good source to explain this
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/info/1clement.html

The general opinion is, that he is the same as the person of that name referred to by St. Paul (Philippians 4: 3). The writings themselves contain no statement as to their author. The first, and by far the longer of them, simply purports to have been written in the name of the Church at Rome to the Church at Corinth. But in the catalogue of contents prefixed to the ms. they are both plainly attributed to one Clement; and the judgment of most scholars is, that, in regard to the first Epistle at least, this statement is correct, and that it is to be regarded as an authentic production of the friend and fellow-worker of St. Paul. This belief may be traced to an early period in the history of the Church. It is found in the writings of Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., iii. 15), of Origen (Comm. in Joan., i. 29), and others. The internal evidence also tends to support this opinion. The doctrine, style, and manner of thought are all in accordance with it; so that, although, as has been said, positive certainty cannot be reached on the subject, we may with great probability conclude that we have in this Epistle a composition of that Clement who is known to us from Scripture as having been an associate of the great apostle.

The date of this Epistle has been the subject of considerable controversy. It is clear from the writing itself that it was composed soon after some persecution (chap. i.) which the Roman Church had endured; and the only question is, whether we are to fix upon the persecution under Nero or Domitian. If the former, the date will be about the year 68; if the latter, we must place it towards the close of the first century or the beginning of the second. We possess no external aid to the settlement of this question. The lists of early Roman bishops are in hopeless confusion, some making Clement the immediate successor of St. Peter, others placing Linus, and others still Linus and Anacletus, between him and the apostle. The internal evidence, again, leaves the matter doubtful, though it has been strongly pressed on both sides. The probability seems, on the whole, to be in favour of the Domitian period, so that the Epistle may be dated about a.d. 97

[...] Also, remember that EVEN if this really was the actual letter written by Clement in 95 AD [...]

But that is the BIG 'IF'. In order to accept the early fathers as evidence, one must inevitably accept the Romanist premise that their religion has sprung forth whole cloth directly from the Apostles and their immediate successors, as these books ARE their proofs. The whole idea is ludicrous to me - That a Torah believing sect of Judaism, whose Progenitor expounded day and night against the traditions of the Pharisees, would establish instead another religion, based upon a very similar authority-and-tradition model confounds all logic.

Did you know that the Pharisaical argument is the same? Their claim is that there were TWO Torahs delivered at Sinai - The written WORD, as delivered by Moses, and the oral tradition, which was kept by the priests (through succession). And while the written Word was kept inviolate for thousands of years, the dynamic nature of their oral tradition (which eventually was written down in the Talmud and Mishnah) was the very thing which Yeshua decried as 'nullifying the commandments of YHWH.'

It is not merely similar - It is the very same thing... AGAIN.

Since the Messiah's claim against the Pharisees is the defining foundation of impropriety in worship to those who follow the Nazarene (whose ministry, btw, lifts up the Torah), it is absurd to believe that He began anew on those very self-same improprieties (as being 'ok' now, since they are done in His Name). And the closer one tries to push those suddenly 'sanctified' improprieties toward 30AD, the more ludicrous the assertion becomes.

We are blessed to be in possession of the Word of YHWH - The original contract(s), as it were - which are designed by their hierarchy to be different than the religious texts produced by man - YHWH's Words are never retracted or changed - so the old is more important than the new - If the new seeks to change the old, it cannot be from YHWH. Apply that truth to any religion claiming to be of the Messiah (or of YHWH generally), and the fruits of tradition become radically and readily apparent.

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.