Posted on 12/08/2012 2:24:39 PM PST by NYer
But yet your PRIMARY group and your money is providing a life of luxury for a man who fed little boys to priests to be raped. I bet like most sane people, you got pretty ticked off at all the folks at Penn State who knew what was going on with Jerry Sandusky yet stayed silent. Well, imagine the FACT that you are paying the bills for a man who did just that! Happy Tithes!
So how many “Churches” did Our Lord found?
I don’t see any specific saint called out for veneration in those quotes, hoss. And be very specific where any of the books of the New Testament call for us to specifically venerate Mary. Love to be shown this.
And perhaps you forgot this preceding one:
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
--Luke 1:31
Nope, no request there.
There was NO beseeching request made by the Angel on behalf of God of Mary whatsoever. Please, show me in Scripture.
Bingo, LT. None can be found.
You'd think that an item of doctrine so essential to the Faith would be ubiquitous throughout the epistles of the New Testament.
Then stop "venerating" Mary as an almost goddess. She would be appalled.
And the RCC is considering elevating her to the position of "co-redemptrix".... good grief!
Is that one Church or many that He welcomes us into?
But it will not be the woman that crushes the serpent's head under her own heel, but was written to be the seed of the woman (which is chiefly Christ?) that shall bruise the serpents head, and the serpent bruise his heel.
http://bible.cc/genesis/3-15.htm
Check all the other versions there. The Douay Rheims has a slight problem...it stands lonely in it's choice of gender in this crucial passage, which so much has been attributed to;
The gentle RC apologist Jimmy Akin, notes;
and, here skipping a paragraph, he shares further;
The reason for the difference in the renderings is a manuscript difference. Modern translations follow what the original Hebrew of the passage says. The Douay-Rheims, however, is following a manuscript variant found in many early Fathers and some editions of the Vulgate (but not the original; Jerome followed the Hebrew text in his edition of the Vulgate). The variant probably originated as a copyist error when a scribe failed to take note that the subject of the verse had shifted from the woman to the seed of the woman.
As far as another modern RCC approved version, this from United States Conference of Catholic Bishops;
I don't know that there is true scholarly support for it anywhere, (outside of the RCC)
Why the persistence of the "copy mistake"? (or as here above, a sly change). Because so much of the past-times infallibly declared liturgy is dependent upon that one mistake!
Here's a calm discussion which makes some note of the old error, but more speaks of what can be wider seen of this verse. http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/stewart.cfm?id=756 though he skips over the "woman" can indeed be Mary, even as he makes it plain that Mary herself cannot be the seed herself, while it is also plain that it not precisely be her own foot doing the crushing. The silly art work spoken of previous is misleading. The old problems of mistaken identification I have been attempting to speak of here on this site for the last handful of days, once again coming to the forefront...
We can see the church triumphing, but not Mary's or any other particular singular woman's alone "heel" bruising the serpents head. It's just not there, for the seed of the woman in the verse, is a HE, not a she. Ask the Jews, they should know. It's THEIR language.
Here, from "Complete Jewish Bible" English translation now available online at http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3&version=CJB the passage;
Truly enough Mary can indeed be the woman, even as she herself is at the same time part of the bigger overall picture, (descended from the tribe of Levi), but to translate the text *Genesis 3:15* and change not just gender, but wider sense QUITE LITERALLY in that one passage for reason that the "seed" can refer to many or a line of descendants, is still translation by reasoning into the text itself both the word and concept "they". It can be argued, it is what one (the RCC in particular) needs desperately to find --- or proved cover for, to give wiggle room for the prior claims to infallibility in regards to various aspects of Mariology.
The gentle Akin again, offering solace in his conclusion;
Thus Jesus crushed the serpent directly and was directly struck by the serpent; Mary, through her cooperation in the incarnation and her witnessing the sufferings and death of her Son, indirectly crushed the serpent and was indirectly struck by the serpent.This has long been recognized by Catholics. The footnotes provided a couple of hundred years ago by Bishop Challoner in his revision of the Douay state, “The sense [of these two readings] is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head.”
That verges on double-speak, as line of reasoning. Which sort-of underwhelms me, in light of the approach you yourself and some other Catholics here & elsewhere otherwise take...which seem so often if not go straight to Mary with her foot directly on the serpent, personally, her own self, then it protects the idea of that by whatever twist and turns can be brought through reasoning and argumentation/apologia, fortifying all the rest of the adoration/veneration which fairly well gallops towards being worship. Some go quite overboard with it.
What of the Jews? What of her linage? What of the promises given directly to them through the prophets? This is important too. Who was this sweet, innocent maiden named Mary? Though she was of Levi, she was no priestess, for she could not be formally a priest, at all. What was she but what that people, two thousand years removed from Abraham, produced from their own lives, their hope, perseverance & faith, not of the Law foremost, but of the Promise, the very promise the Lord Himself swore to keep.
He raised her up, saw her from far off, even as Moses, and then David, saw Christ from afar. She herself born more of that promise than the law (though again, of the tribe of the temple priests, who did what? -- prepared the sacrifice!), that plan, that intent, at that particular time & place, through the Spirit & Promise before the law, like a gentle lamb, or tender ewe herself, brought forth (for she was worthy) the Lamb Himself, she as vessel chosen by the most High.
That does not make her into later being or becoming "Queen of heaven", for she herself, like Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, all the rest, were and are merely created beings, not eternal God, not the Creator.
As Christ told the woman at the well, "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews".
If we are to stay within the Judeo-Christian construct, let's not forget the Judeo part. Stick with the original plan, eh?
...thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son...
Not conditioned by, "if that's OK with you."
And lest Catholic apologist try to accuse me of condoning rape, keep in mind that many of God's chosen vessels were unwilling, even intractable, regarding his will for them:
- Moses
- Jonah
- Simon Peter
- Thomas
And yet he still insisted on His way.
Mary's response was one of subservience to the will of God; it was incidental to His will.
And in this I agree with the man who said the title Co-redemptrix “departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings,” and which is applicable to many of the excessive laudatory titles RCs give in their supererogation of praise to the Mary of Rome: http://peacebyjesus.tripod.com/marysc.html
Mary’s consent was given, as was that Moses, Peters, etc. after their protests, and she could have refused, yet the issue is that this does not render her the saint on steroids Catholics make her to be as compared to those whom the Holy Spirit testified far more of (even in the gospels Mary is quite marginal).
Mary is an example of a holy and surrendered vessel of God in carrying and caring for the Word made flesh, and blessed by being so chosen, but which did not require her to be sinless anymore than it was necessary for those to be who brought forth the wholly inspired Words of God, or the nation of Israel, “of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came.” (Rm. 9:5)
And the error is in exalting Mary “above that which is written,” (cf. 1Cor. 4:6)
Mary is not shown and laboring day and night for years in the care of all the churches, and suffering great persecution as she did so, or constantly feeding the church with her words, or even being a worker of many miracles and being an instrument of healing for many.
Instead, the most preeminent example of this, after the Lord Jesus, is the apostle Paul, who is relatively marginalized by Rome behind Mary and others.
Considering the unwarranted excess of attributions given to Mary by Catholics wresting Scripture, one can only imagine what more they would do if even 10% of the manifestations of the above attributes was given to Mary.
You are correct. We only ask the saints to pray with us to God. We all pray to God - sinners and saints alike.
However, your sentence says “...worship that should only be directed to God, which is idolatry.” Really? Worship directed to God is idolatry? I’d have to disagree with you on that.
That the pederast priest that raped them committed a horrendous sin and a horrendous crime, and that these boys should wish work for a stronger Catholic Church that would consider any form of homosexuality, including homosexual inclination, a firm bar against priesthood or deaconate, or work with the flock in the Church; that would publicly and loudly proclaim that homosexuality or other sexual deviance is a sin regardless of civil laws that might allow them. The Church has the Holy Inquisition that she, the Church employed to great effect and it is time for Holy Inquisition to be sent to America and eradicate these pederast priests from her midst, and where civil laws were committed, refer them to civil prosecution.
Then I urge the victims of abuse to purge all vindictive passions form their souls and seek strength to forgive their tormentors, and come as slaves to Christ to my Church, which alone can lead them to Christ and to salvation.
Them, especially, I will urge to stay away form the errors of Protestantism which is a religion based on hatred of the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. I will also urge them to fight modernism, all its works, political and artistic, and all its designs to reform human sexuality in the Satan's mold.
There isn't any. The saints are venerated as an outpouring of love for them from the bosom of the flock. It is initially spontaneous. The Early Church considered friendship with Christ during his ministry on earth, or martyrdom for the faith sufficient proof of sainthood. Later, more formal methods came into use recognizing saints. but none of that had any specific form during the Apostolic times, and therefore the principles of venerating saints did not make it into scripture.
Individual acts of veneration can be seen in the scripture here and there. In Luke 11:27-28 someone venerates Mary, but does it with such a physiological focus "Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck" that Christ directs her attention to "all who hear the word of God, and keep it" Christ doesn't, however, repudiate the veneration of His mother in this episode. Similarly, in Acts 19:12 we read of veneration of the relics of the Apostles; at another time, the excessive veneration of the living apostles earns a rebuke when it crosses into worship (Acts 14:10, 13-14).
We also explicit endorsement of intercessory prayer in 1 Timothy 2:1, and we see Mary's advocacy before Christ and work on leading men to the faith in Christ in John 2:3,5. Of course, the general idea that saints are a part of our lives is simply in the knowledge that those who die in repentance and in faith have life everlasting, -- and again see Hebrews 11:39-40, 12:1-2.
You agree. I disagree. Now everyone knows who agrees with what.
Your defense against the accusation that Catholics pray to and worship Mary seems to employ a nuanced usage of "prayer" and "worship" such that Catholics ARE praying and worshiping, but just not in the accused sense. Partial admission only leaves room for partial denial.
Folks who make up their own religion, though, like to start out by redefining terms to suit their own twisting of Scripture. Due to that fact they often can't understand a simple word like "prayer" because they've accepted the twisted definition their own personal religion finds useful in furthering their lies and their slanders of others.
Examples of redefined terms used in this thread would include "worship" and "veneration" and "imitate" such that veneration is a world away from worship whereas imitation is (according to the author of the cited article) IS veneration.
Likewise, such followers of false religions cannot meet and accept Christ because they refuse to accept Christ as He is and insist that their version of Christ conform to their own personal religion so they can go along to get along in a pagan society.
I didn't realize that Christ's own nature had become the issue. Are you about to admit that Catholic dogma is that salvation depends upon accepting a particular belief about Mary?
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.