Mary 'can only bring us to God,' expert says as entrustment nears

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com ^ | October 11, 2013 | Elise Harris

[NKP_Vet]

Vatican City, Oct 11, 2013 / 07:25 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Anticipating Pope Francis' entrustment of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary on Oct. 13, a specialist in Marian apparitions reflected on how the Blessed Mother serves to bring people to Jesus.

“It is necessary to have recourse to the Virgin because she can only bring you to God. That's her whole mission. She has nothing of self in it at all. She lives only for God and to bring you to God,” said Marian expert Tim Tindal-Robertson during an Oct. 10 interview with CNA.

Tindal-Robertson is currently the national president in England of the World Apostolate of Fatima, an international association of the faithful which was erected by the Pontifical Council for the Laity in 2010.

Speaking of the significance of Pope Francis’ decision to entrust the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Tindal-Robertson said that “the Pope has judged that in the year of faith this is a very appropriate moment” to focus on Mary’s presence in the Church.

[redleghunter]

"You may notice that Jesus addressed only one group of people in that manner, the Scribes and Pharisees. He dined with prostitutes, tax collectors, publicans, and obviously charmed them."

Good Morning Arthur, seems a lot of us were up late last night here on FR:)

To add to your commentary above I believe Jesus preached where their was "good soil" (reference the parable of soils). The sinners of society were prepared to hear the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. So many who had hearts of stone were yearning for hearts of flesh (prepared hearts). Please see the parable of the Pharasee and the Publican.

Luke Chapter 18: 11 The Pharisee standing, prayed thus with himself: O God, I give thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, as also is this publican. 12 I fast twice in a week: I give tithes of all that I possess. 13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not so much as lift up his eyes towards heaven; but struck his breast, saying: O God, be merciful to me a sinner. 14 I say to you, this man went down into his house justified rather than the other: because every one that exalteth himself, shall be humbled: and he that humbleth himself, shall be exalted.(DRV)

[Iscool]

Why do you call any follower of the Christ who quotes the Holy WORD of G-d, catholic bashers ?

Seems appropriate to me...Many of them know the written words of God condemns and bashes the Catholic religion, so bible believers are automatically Catholic religion bashers...

[Iscool]

It is an interesting fact that no one in the history of the world has ever claimed to possess a relic from the body of Mary.

The church knew that there was nothing of profit in the flesh...Christians would not have been interested in collecting human bones...That's a Catholic thing...

[redleghunter]

That’s what I was saying! Catholics say Jesus was wrong when He said the flesh profits nothing but that He was speaking spiritually. 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

I have to agree. Jesus spoke clearly, literally yet did so while also using depictions, parables etc. If we follow the entire passage starting with the end of John 5, we see Jesus plainly telling them earlier they were not "getting Him" speaking plainly. So He then shifts to analogies of eating and drinking because He just fed them in chapter 5.

That is why it is so important to read/study the Bible within the context of the passage (what comes before and after is important) and take an expository approach (what else is said in the Bible on the same subject matter both NT and OT). When we start playing "dueling" Bible verses we all lose the richness of the context...the larger message.

[redleghunter]

Jesus is referring to natural human nature, not His flesh, which is, of course, sinless, and perfect, and which exists by the divine act of being—i.e., by the same infinite act of being as the Word itself, Second Person of the Trinity. If by “flesh” in this context, Jesus meant His own flesh, then the crucifixion and resurrection of His body would have profited the world nothing. It is precisely because HIS flesh DOES profit that He commanded us to receive it in the Eucharist. The flesh that profiteth nothing is OUR flesh. In other words, you have ripped a few verses out of context, and indulged in the common error of assuming that a particular word, anywhere it appears in Scripture, always has precisely and exactly the same meaning.

Arthur excellent depiction above. Yes Jesus Christ Truly God and Truly Man is the spotless Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. By His Body and His Blood our sins are washed away.

I will also note, that the Israelites when celebrating Passover ate the lamb as well. Passover was a "shadow" "type" of what was to come...The death, burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. One, Passover, was a physical deliverance, the second, Calvary/the Empty Tomb was spiritual deliverance.

[redleghunter]

I have heard from a number of people that work in hospitals (doctors, nurses) that "Catholics die best."

What I have seen transcends Christian denomination. Those that showed the roots and fruit of being born again (begotton of above) joyfully welcome the hour of their passing pilgrimage on earth to meet their Good Shepherd.

Within a year I witnessed the last days, hours of my aunt then my father pass from their earthly pilgrimage. Both were life long Roman Catholics, both knew the Bible and both showed the true fruits of saving faith. It was a joy to sit bedside with them reading their favorite Bible chapter John 14 (yes they were brother and sister). Oh the joy on their faces as I read the very first verses:

Let not your heart be troubled. You believe in God, believe also in me. 2 In my Father's house there are many mansions. If not, I would have told you: because I go to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I shall go, and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and will take you to myself; that where I am, you also may be. 4 And whither I go you know, and the way you know. 5 Thomas saith to him: Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? 6 Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me. 7 If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also: and from henceforth you shall know him, and you have seen him.

[redleghunter]

BTW: This thread originated with a Catholic news item.

Sir, you are correct. If I have been a poor guest please let me know.

[redleghunter]

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8-9

You bring up a VERY good topic of discussion. I am the new guy here, so don't think I have permissions to post pieces. So maybe a senior member could post a thread called "What is the Gospel of Jesus Christ." I think that would be a very good pursuit. It would get down to the brass tacks.

[BlueDragon]

I wasn't speaking of "translations" or even the "books" of scripture we know of as "the Gospels" but the Gospel itself, the good news as it were, when I spoke of the information at the two links which I pointed at as being significantly different "Gospel" than was originally preached by the Apostles, and it could be added, spoken of by Christ himself.

I even provided some brief example of what "different" Gospel was preached, for it was not the gospel of Christ, as preached by the Apostles (and the first couple or few generations of successors to those persons) but something different. The synthesis which is Marianism, is not the Gospel, but more like some strange, pious sounding distortion of "gospel".

I provided links previous, here again is one of those links, taking one directly to the portion I find in conflict with the original "Gospel" --->http://www.ewtn.com/library/montfort/truedevo.htm#Supplement

Anyone who tells me that sort of thing is Gospel, is either confused as to what the Gospel is, or is a Roman Catholic Marian devotee (but I repeat myself).

Still, there are those in the [Roman] Catholic church who don't go quite far as the syncretism double-talk of Montfort in their own "Marian" devfotions, as does Montfort's own imitations of Bernard of Clairvaux devotions, whom the RC church has declared both, to be a saints.

[Iscool]

Like God will allow the Mother of God to rot in the earth like other mortals.

Yes God certainly would and he certainly did...Our flesh is corrupt as well as Mary's...Jesus couldn't have gone to heaven in his human body because his flesh was corrupt as well...The ignorance of scripture for you guys is astounding...

Your religion makes up these fables and ignores what God teaches and not only do you guys blindly follow along, you have no interest to study the scriptures to find out what God really has to say about these things, or anything...

[Iscool]

So, was Elizabeth not talking about Jesus Christ as God or is Luke a liar which would mean Luke isn't inspired by the Holy Spirit?

Neither...At that time no one knew Jesus was God...They saw him as the Messiah, the future leader of the Jews...

[Iscool]

Why do we know where the tombs of Peter and Paul are? They weren’t Fourth Century.

The Peter you are referring to is Peter Magus...Paul's tomb may or may not be Paul's tomb...

There is enough known corruption and forgery in your Catholic history that everything should be questioned...

[Iscool]

LOL...

[Iscool]

Jesus spittin’ in that Catholic guy’s eye...I can believe that...

[redleghunter]

Why do we know where the tombs of Peter and Paul are? They weren’t Fourth Century.

Afternoon Arthur. To be honest the locations of tombs of Peter, Paul and many other faithful apostles, men and women are mostly handed down by tradition. There was even some debate among the ECFs if Peter ever made it to Rome. I am not saying the traditions are wrong, it is just we don't have solid evidence. I think both Peter and Paul were really not interested in the final state of their bones. They preached a Gospel of Resurrection and Life Everlasting.

So I don't think even the early Christians were too concerned about their corpse given they believed and trusted in the Resurrection. I don't think we know enough about the accuracy of tombs and relics. Really, we have to ask "does it matter?" I don't think so. We do KNOW from Acts and the Epistles that Peter, Paul et al. fought the good fight, they finished the race faithfully enduring to the end. We will at Resurrection be able to thank them for their testimony, service and devotion give them a high five and enter the gates of the Kingdom of God arm and arm.

[redleghunter]

Yet the Church existed. People had faith. People knew the gospel. Without a speck of a written New Testament.

Arthur, can we say with certainty there was not a written word of the NT in the times of apostles? In fact, we know the apostles referenced "The Scriptures" many times in referring to what we call the NT. They quoted the OT many, many times in their Epistles and stated "As Jesus said" and "you all know this because Jesus said" throughout the Epistles. In fact we did have the NT in the times of the apostles...The apostles themselves were a bipedal NT walking the known earth. We do know they wrote Epistles we have them today! We do know they kept parchments and "books" as evidenced by II Timothy 4:13:

13 Bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas when you come—and the books, especially the parchments.

But probably the most striking evidence we have from the Epistles and Acts is that the apostles and early Christians "saw Jesus on every page" of the OT as evidenced by this:

10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men.

[redleghunter]

"human tradition of “sola scriptura”..."

Matthew chapter 4:

Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 And after He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He then became hungry. 3 And the tempter came and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.” 4 But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.’”

[redleghunter]

Matthew was written a mere 4-6 years after Christ’s ascension. In fact most of the New Testament we have today was written before Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD. So those churches indeed did have Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and in person no less and before they left this earth their words were in written form to be preserved for us today.

Very accurate. Here is a good link for the dating of the NT:

http://www.errantskeptics.org/DatingNT-ChronologicalOrder.htm

[redleghunter]

As far as I know, the Gospels are the same, both Protestant and Catholic, with the exception of a very few disputed verses. Luther kicked out the Epistle of James, because it speaks of good works, but that’s another matter.

I don't think there are disputed verses. You may have some modern versions that use brackets on some verses and foot note it as "does not appear in the earliest manuscripts." But it will be hard to find a Prot theologian to say "ignore those verses."

Luther did not toss James. It is in all the Prot Bibles too. He did have issues with it, but "upon further review" he saw the authority of James not to mention the richness of it. James does not contradict Paul's epistles. In fact James is a great compliment to the other epistles. James rightly said if you do not show the fruits of salvation then your faith is dead. Jesus, Paul, Peter, John all said the same thing. A good tree does not produce bad fruit. If the root is good, the fruit will be good. Calvin had a lot to say about that too.

[CynicalBear]

>>But the context suggests that the meaning is literal, in some sense. Because it was a “hard saying,” and it drove many of His followers away, because they simply couldn’t accept it.<<

The saying was a “hard saying” and they couldn’t accept it because they took it to mean literal flesh and blood. They were Jews and not only was eating human flesh verboten but any blood was not to be eaten. It’s clear from Jesus own words in that same conversation of “the flesh profiteth nothing should be a clear indication He was talking about the real physical flesh. In the upper room Jesus said it was the “fruit of the vine” they were drinking.

Matthew 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

He didn’t say it “had changed” into His body and indicated He would drink of that fruit of the vine again. The apostles didn’t teach how to somehow make that bread change into the body of Christ or that once that bread had changed that it was forever to be considered such and to be disposed of in a certain way if not consumed. It’s a symbolic form of a spiritual truth.

>>Jesus didn’t call them back and explain that he was speaking metaphorically.<<

Why would He call back those He knew were not true believers anyway. He obviously knew they had been following Him for other reasons then true belief.

John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.