Posted on 08/15/2013 7:03:11 PM PDT by annalex
Once a woman in the crowd surrounding Christ and His disciples cries out to Him:
Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck. (Luke 11:27)
What is it? We have, clearly, an act of venerating Mary. Note that the Blessed Virgin is venerated properly: not on her own but as the mother of Christ. Yet the reason for venerating is indeed concerning: it is her physiological and physiologically unique relationship with Jesus that is emphasized. That is not yet paganism with its crude theories of gods giving birth to other gods, but it is lacking proper focus and Jesus corrects it:
Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it. (Luke 11:28)
|
| The Virgin with the Child on her knees and a prophet pointing at the star. Catacomb of Priscilla, late 2nd c. Source |
Having gotten past this linguistic hurdle, we can understand clearly what this passage, Luke 11:27-28, does: it establishes veneration of saints based not on their blood relation to Christ but on their obedience to God. It is in that sense that we venerate Our Lady: given that Christ is the Word of God personified, she heard and kept both Him in person as her Child and His teaching, figuratively. In Mary the essence of sainthood is seen in the flesh as well as in the mind. We could say that by the late second century at the latest, when we find evidence of the veneration of both the prophets and the Mother of God in the catacombs, the two reasons to venerate a saint: his martyrdom as in the case of Polycarp, or his obedience to the Word, as in Mary, -- unite into a single practice.
Uh...
Just WHO 'imposed' them?
MORE about Mary: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3055679/posts
Hyperbole for sure, but considering the uncritical use of the "mother of God" (Rm. 9:5 even clarifies "according to the flesh" in regards to the Lord coming forth from Israel ) and the extra-Scriptural and un-Scriptural supererogatory exaltation and adulation of Mary, one can understand how we can see her almost being held as a 4th person of the Trinity.
Yet Catholics are right in calling her The Mother of God, since Jesus is God and she is His Mother...
You are merely repeating the polemic and not interacting with my response which deals with that very argument, and its logical extension.
If you remove the artificially-imposed chapters and verse numbers in Scripture, these verses appear consecutively:
Is this interpretation something good RCs can disagree with? Is this teaching "according to the unanimous consent of the fathers.? If not, then it is simply one example of the great liberty RCs have to interpret the Bible in order to support Rome, even though Scriptural substantiation is not the real basis for assurance of doctrine for an RC. In any case, i disagree with this and multitude other like extrapolative exaltations of holy Mary above what is written.
The title of Co-Redemptrix is correct, when properly understood, but confusing to the ignorant, for the reasons that the pope specified. What does that prove?
It "proves" there is sound reason not to use it even from a rather notable RC authority.
Augmentation of abilities after death, in a state of grace? Ample examples? From where? The scriptures you cite don't do what you seem to be claiming, for none of them are any sort of example of "abilities after death". If memory serves...this isn't the first time you have cited those same scriptures, trying to use them in similar ways -- to which another then went through them, each in turn, going into detail of why they don't "work". Yet here they come again...
In the future...when claiming the fantastical--- bring the actual passages you speak of. I do hate wild goose chases...shoot...even the portion of MartPol which you cite, says nothing much about "veneration of relics". That sort of thing is a later "read between the lines" in effort to justify superstitious regard of objects --- which is said to not be worship, but only "veneration".
Otherwise...it is as "logical" for a "Protestant" (whatever those are) to object to praying to anyone other than the Father in Heaven --- for Christianity is much reliant upon what was revealed to the Hebrews. Or else God only gave them partial truths...was in effect only stringing them along, or playing games.
Praying to those whom have passed on hearkens back to pagan ancestor worship with a bit of Greco-Roman "hero" worship (they now be as gods) mixed in for "godly" measure.
Ancestor worship was widely practiced in Ur, which Abram was instructed to leave. Gilgamesh and others...having once lived and been kings or men of renown, once passed on, were then elevated to status of city-state "protector" --- and prayed to. Those minor gods, the "protectors", none of them singular God, were at times adopted by other city/state provinces. It's good to have more than one protector?...or to have differing kinds, sort of like modern physicians become specialists?
Looking around the world, of those places not in some way influenced by Hebrew religious thought (even if it be mainly by way of Christians) just WHERE is it which developed an actual monothesism?
In comparison;
Catholics have saints of this or that... lost things... hopeless causes...travel...what else? Pray to...I dunno, pick one -- St. Anthony --- and what will happen? Will two front teeth show up come Santa Claus Season?
Is God's arm foreshortened to such an extent he must now rely upon others to "give good gifts" to those persons He adopts as now His own children?
A rich daddy, eh? But too busy for the kids, so he has servants, hirelings, and "old family friends" do the fathering? ...And here I thought God was a Jealous God. He tells us that He is.
But now...we are directed to pray to "saints"? Even if it be said "not instead of, but also, and in addition to" praying towards the One true God --- it is still wrong. To the extent your "church" endorses the practice, your "church" is wrong. Just ask the Jews. I'll stand with them in this, before I'll stand with you, and do so without denying Christ on iota for having done so. My conscience in this is perfectly clear, perfectly at peace
Men and their imaginations, in their wishful thinking, have been mixing in extraneous worldly garbage into Catholicism for centuries. Which is a crying shame... for much else is or can be quite correct.
Why not just do as Christ directed? He did not direct anyone to pray even to his own person, but instead... to pray to the Father in his name. In the realm of prayer, why do anything else? Please...don't reply to me at all concerning the ideas you are trying to push, unless you answer that question.
Christ is attributed to have directly instructed us to pray to the Father, in his name. Nowhere in the NT do the Apostles (or Christ, either) instruct anyone to pray to anyone other than the Creator.
The newadvent link to MartPol doesn't do much. Besides... you seemed to have fully ducked the questions concerning it. Which version is newadvent relying upon? Not all versions are the same. There are some fundamental questions as to the historicity of the piece, too.
And --- you have not much said what you are trying to prove with it ---save for that which I have already shown to have been your own illogical opinion, which you seem to have been saying was based upon the part which you cited.
You have gone from; First--- the Jews started this opposition to praying to saints (which what you cited did not show, for the alleged objections of some Jews at that time concerning The "Jews" spoken of were along the lines of them thinking Christians might just go ahead and make another "Christ" out of the martyred Polycarp. In comparison --- no one had "bones" of Christ to "venerate". No clothes, no nothing (though some *stuff* showed up centuries later, but not bones)
Your reasoning comes across as;
Protestant can't speak against "polytheism" because Roman Catholics all but entirely indulge themselves in it. It could be said that RC'ers (some of them, anyway) DO in fact practice a form of polytheism, by claiming there are god-like powers and attributes spread around to those other than the Creator, with just some word-play and "special" definitions holding them back (if at all) from having portrayed these once living humans as having now joined the godhead. It's like there is God...and a bunch of junior rank gods. Just because in the RCC pantheon the "juniors" need be lesser than the One (big?) God, does not stop them from (according to RC theology) acting with god-like powers. Some RC'ers go as far to say Christ will not say "no" to Mary --- so plead with Mary, convince her how pious one is, or how much in need-- then she'll TELL Jesus what to tell the Father? ok -- this last part is not exactly spelled out in "official" teachings word-for-word as just described -- but human nature doubtlessly takes it that direction, it cannot be denied.
““Normal” begs the question of her worthiness.”
We (Mary included) are not worthy. That’s the whole point.
The Father gave her the supernatural grace to be worthy of his Son. Meditate on the reason why Jesus was born of a virgin rather than as John was, as Isaac was,as Samuel was, by natural grace through the intercourse of a man and a woman. The Virgin Birth was not a “miracle,” but the Creator taking on the form and substance of a creature, becoming a man
The assumption is her Resurrection. She is taken body and soul into eternity. In eternity there is no before and after.
It is a bit ironical that someone with Lutheran views should compare her labors with Paul’s and see her coming short. Her great work was BEING the mother of my Lord. You think that a mean accomplishment?
Nowhere in the Good Book is Mary referred to as the "Queen of Heaven" or given any ranking over the Apostles. It is paganistic to elevate man to a God-like status or in this case a demigoddess title. This fixation on Mary is a perversion of the gospel and is adding to the Words of the Bible of which there are stern warnings against. Meditate on Galatians 1:8 before proceeding on a book extolling the "Magic of Mary".
In any case the dispute had to do with the central questions: What is man; who is Jesus?Mary must be taken into account in any such discussion. Therefore, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was proclaimed the Church right at the time when Arianism in its most extreme form, idealism, was coming to dominate church circles, and The doctrine of the Assumption when materialism began its present march to rule the nations.
Many have noted the willingness of the materalists to accept Islam while at the same time making their contempt of traditional Christianity clear. But Islam is in the most direct form anti-christ. At its core is the doctrine that Jesus is not the son of God. They revere him, or claim to revere him as a prophet and Mary as his mother. But they reject the doctrine of the incarnation as Arius did because they are radical monotheists. To be sure, their God, unlike that of Arius, is not pure reason but pure will and --paradoxically, so is the god of the materialists, the god of this world. What the Muslims call Allah is, least in the thinking of the materalists, this same God.
“Queen of heaven” is a metaphor. One of our titles for Jesus is Christ the King. Jesus is King of Heaven; Mary is Queen of heaven, or if you bother to look for a Biblical source, Queen Mother. In ancient Israel, the king might have a favorite wife but only one mother. The woman at the Court who counted, at least in the southern kingdom, was the Queen Mother.
Read it over and over. Understand it. Flee Catholicism and leave the Popes, statues, rituals and extra-Biblical teachings behind. I know they comfort you. They are alluring and appeal to the emotions. Flee and depend on the Lord. Look to Him without pomp and colors and rituals.
Galatians 1:7,8 “there are some who want to trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.”
You may wish to look in the mirror, Bob.
You may want to lose the blasphemous tagline Mark.
You were not taught what you are posting by the authority of the Church. What, then, taught you that?
The notorious St. Augustine coined that phrase. Since he is blamed for much of Jean Cauvin's heresies, which form the root of much of the Protestant Reformation, you may wish to rethink your statement.
And who preached this version of the Gospel to you? Not the pope, but another human being, a spiritual father but not the Paul of the New Testament. Growing up in East Texas, I was surrounded by persons of many denominations, and I know that all of these represent a different tradition, a different reading of the Bible. Your understanding of it is predicated on the teaching of someone else whether you will admit it or not.
Where does the flower get its fragrance? I have been to many churches and listened to many pastors. I’ve taken Bible courses and I have studied at least 5 different versions of the Bible. I have read Isaiah 1:18 where the Lord beckons “Come now, and let us reason together”. That and I eat a bowl of ®YOPIOS every morning and I’m good to go. When I see your tagline, it’s like seeing a triathlon athlete with training wheels on his bike at the Olympics.
No, I don't think so. I don't know Mr. Augustine but if I did, I would tell him he is in 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.