OOOoopsie!!
Posted on 03/31/2014 7:35:15 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
A.) When the vote was taken on July 1870, at the First Vatican Council, with 433 votes in favour (placet) and only 2 against (non placet) against defining as dogma the infallibility of the pope when speaking ex cathedra, did those Bishops possess infallibility when (or at least only when) voting? Did any of them keep this infallibility (did it remain with all of them or any of them) after they left and returned home? Did any of these Bishops possess any infallibility at anytime before the vote was cast?
B.) Was Mary's (the Mother of Jesus) mother immaculately conceived as Mary was? Was Mary's grandmother immaculately conceived, too? If so, was there near-infinite regression of these immaculate conceptions? If so, how far back did these immaculate conceptions go? If they did not go back farther than two, why were only two and not say three or four immaculate conceptions needed?
C.) When the Apostle Paul confronted Peter (when Peter was being hypocritical concerning his eating with Jews and Gentiles), did the Apostle Paul possess infallibility when stating that Gentiles did NOT have to be circumcised as a requisite for being a Christian? If so, how many other Apostles possessed infallibility in their actions that were later recorded in the Book of Acts?
D.) During the time of the Western Great Schism of 1378, if papal infallibility was in existence at that time (and only later just codified), how could any person who was not one of the two Popes infallibly know (if they did not possess any measure of infallibility) which POpe was legitimate until this was later worked out? What about that period of time? Were people left "twisting in the wind?"
Both "mother of" and "grandmother of' most naturally convey ontological oneness, and the frequent and unqualified use of which, and as part of the supererogatory praise given to Mary, constitutes thinking of her above that which is written. (cf. 1Cor. 4:6) For in contrast to the Mary of Scripture, the Mary of Catholicism cannot be honored to excess, and in the Catholic quest to almost deify Mary, then among other thongs, it is taught by Catholics *
as Christ was sinless, so Mary was;
as the Lord remained a virgin, so Mary;
as Christ was called the Son of God, indicating ontological oneness, so Mary is called the Mother of God, which easily infers the same, and is not the language of Scripture, (nor is "Co-Redemptrix");
as the emphasis is upon Christ as the Creator through whom God (the Father) made all things, including Mary, so it is emphasized that uniquely “to her, Jesus owes His Precious Blood,” shed for the salvation of mankind, (the logic behind which can lead back to Eve);
as Catholics (adding error to error) believe Christ gave His actual flesh and blood to be eaten, so it is emphasized that Mary gave Him this, being fashioned out of Mary's pure blood and even being “kneaded with the admixture of her virginal milk,” so that she can say, "Come and eat my bread, drink the wine I have prepared" (Prov. 9:5);
as Scripture declares that Christ suffered for our sins, so Mary is said to have done so also;
as Christ saves us from the condemnation and death resulting from the fault of Adam, so it is taught that man was condemned through the fault of Eve, the root of death, but that we are "saved through the merits of Mary;" who was the source of life for everyone.
as the Lord was bodily ascended into Heaven, so Mary also was;
as Christ is given all power in heaven and in earth, so Mary is “surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven.”
as Christ is the King of the saints and over all kings, (Rv. 15:3; 17:14; 19:16) so Mary is made Queen of Heaven and the greatest saint, and that “Next to God, she deserves the highest praise;”
as the Father made Christ Lord over all things, so Mary is enthroned (all other believers have to wait for their crowns) and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things;
as Christ is highly exalted above all under the Father, so Mary is declared to be the greatest saint of all, and as having "a certain equality with the Heavenly Father;"
as Christ ever liveth to make intercession for the saints, so is Mary said to do so, to whom "we have recourse, to thee alone," even sometimes as a more immediate and superior recourse for help than Christ Himself, and with her prayers being like commands to God;
as all things come from the Father through the Son, so Mary is made to be the dispenser of all grace;
as Christ is given all power on Heaven and on earth, Mary is said to have (showing some restraint) “almost unlimited power;”
as no man comes to the Father but through the Son, so it is taught that no one can come to the Son except through Mary in Heaven;
and as the Lord called souls to come to Him to be given life and salvation, so (in misappropriation of the words of Scripture) it is said of Mary, “He that shall find me shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord;” “that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.”
And as Christ is given many titles of honor, so Mary also is, except that she is honored by Catholics with more titles than they give to the Lord Himself!
It is through God in IHS that Mary receives all the graces we claim she has.
And "to her, Jesus owes His Precious Blood" (http://www.salvemariaregina.info/SalveMariaRegina/SMR-098.html) no matter how they seek to qualify it, "owe" means the Creator is indebted to His creation.
RE: The Pope may be the most saintly man electable...”
That’s not the basis of infallibility. The basis is the Rock he stands on, Jesus Christ. The LORD promised the gates of hell could not prevail, not against a man, but against Christ. So, no, I don’t trust any man myself. I DO trust Christ.
Secondly, you had no problem with women’s ordination, because you didn’t find a prohibition in the Bible? You weren’t as careful as you thought! Jesus did not allow women to act in clerical roles at any time. As a woman, I am not insulted by that. Women think and act differently than men, especially in leadership roles. Also, take it from me, men do NOT listen well to women! You are right that it isn’t sinful to be a woman, nor do all women always do poorly in all leadership roles. (Maggie Thatcher and other excellent female leaders come to mind, but they are rare, even in the political domain.) However, it is sinful to assume a vocation one is not called to. One cannot be a priest if one is not called. They who are not called, but attempt it anyway will not be standing on the Rock, and will collapse like a house built on sand.
Why Yes; yes it was!
And it was eating Jumbo Shrimp in the
Military Intelligence cafeteria!
I've been toad things like that before.
HMMMmmm...
Good advice.
There are HUNDREDS of Catholics on FR that belong to a specific church.
Quite a few of them still continue to BASH PROTESTantism.
What say ye to them?
The hermeneutic is in the Chalcedonian definition. And ONE thing that means is that we can't do Xtological theology in sound bites anymore ... and so we can't do Mariology that way either.
If he REALLY was a baby, then he, in some sense, is owed milk, and, in another, owes gratitude to her who provided it. And so for all the ὕλη of which he is made.
As Son of God He is eternal. As Son of Mary he is sempiternal. But he is one and not two, so Mary fed God, and heart the beat of God's heart.
===
(P.S.: I think we do better to stick with "really," "truly," and "substantially," in trying to depict what Catholics teach about the Eucharist. "Actually" is a very complicated word, IMHO.)
(P.P.S.: I do see the possible connection between the hypostatic union as articulated at Chalcedon and the teaching of the Sacrament.)
(P.P.P.S.: I think the real theological hinge is at John of Damascus.)
We may all not agree on some things but let us all agree that The Lord is Risen and is Lord, that would be a good start.
We DO all agree with this.
WE are WAY past this milk teaching!
___________________________________________________
Elsie, perhaps you have a mouse in your pocket when you say we, unfortunately there are those who claim to be Christian ministers who teach that Christ was not divine. There are Christian ministers in mainline churches that teach that Christ was not literally resurrected but that it was only his spirit that was resurrected.
I realize that Christ told His Apostles that He was not spirit, to touch Him, to give Him meat to eat but somehow some preachers think they are smarter than the translators of the scriptures. Woe be unto them.
Although there is no clear record of Joseph Smith teaching of Heavenly Mother publicly, several of Smith's contemporaries attributed the theology to him either directly, or as a consequence of his theological stance.
Tradition again!
An editorial footnote of History of the Church, 5:254, presumably quotes Joseph Smith as saying: "Come to me; here's the mysteries man hath not seen, Here's our Father in heaven, and Mother, the Queen."
According to one sermon by Brigham Young, Joseph Smith once said he "would not worship a God who had not a father; and I do not know that he would if he had not a mother; the one would be as absurd as the other."[11]
Finally, the real ontological mother of God has been found! Blasphemous!
This is not a tactic, but substantiated examples of what is seen in Catholicism without censure, including by popes. If i do not example what i am protesting, then it has little impact. And this extra and un Scriptural hyper exaltation is a broad front. Even if not all official doctrine, Ja. 2:18 teaches that what we do constitutes the evidence of what we believe.
The hermeneutic is in the Chalcedonian definition. And ONE thing that means is that we can't do Xtological theology in sound bites anymore ... and so we can't do Mariology that way either.
Which the laity, and even clerics who hold it is impossible to honor Mary to excess (what if we said that about Paul?) understand.
If he REALLY was a baby, then he, in some sense, is owed milk, and, in another, owes gratitude to her who provided it.
That is frankly absurd and unintentional blasphemy. The creator is not indebted to any of His creation. God needs nothing and no one, (Acts 17:25) and He did not need Mary as His vessel, but she owes Christ her soul mind and breath. You would have to say that Christ owes believers gratitude for supplying the instruments to spread His word, when in reality we owe Him for the privilege of serving Him, which saints will do in glory, but those in Hell are deprived from doing.
But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able to offer so willingly after this sort? for all things come of thee, and of thine own have we given thee. (1 Chronicles 29:14)
. But he is one and not two, so Mary fed God, and heart the beat of God's heart.
God chose to use mortals to reveal Himself, and what Mary provided was nothing more than what God provided her, and prepared her to be His instrument.
And "God bearer" can be somewhat tolerable in theological context, but "mother of God" is the popular title which does convey ontologically oneness, as in Divinity birthing Divinity and is not the language of Scripture, which even clarifies that from Israel " as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen," (Romans 9:5) while "mother of God conveys a pagan concept (even Mormonism). What Ratzinger said as concerns “Co-redemptrix” applies here insofar as Scripture is concerned, that "the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings” He went on to say that, “Everything comes from Him [Christ], as their Latter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything she is through Him. The word “Co-redemptrix” would obscure this origin. A correct intention being expressed in the wrong way. “For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language” - God and the world: believing and living in our time, by Pope Benedict XVI, p. 306 Of course, the so-called "Fathers also began going beyond what Scripture said also. I think we do better to stick with "really," "truly," and "substantially," in trying to depict what Catholics teach about the Eucharist. "Actually" is a very complicated word What you stated is really, truly, actually the case. And I actually truly really read from a RC blog that "Real Presence" was an Anglican word to cover up its differences, but was co-opted by Rome. The church is to be the "Real Presence" to the world, and was the body of Christ in 1Cor. 11:17-34.
Again, Jesus may not have allowed women to act in a clerical role but neither did He forbid it.
Of course, women act and think differently from men, but I view that as a positive and not a negative.
Perhaps the men you've known do not listen women, but if so they are the poorer for it; personally, I've known women to whom I listen to without hesitation and men whose opinions I wouldn't waste a nanosecond on - and, of course, the reverse is true.
Of course, one should not assume a leadership position if not called to it. But who decides who is called and who isn't? Is this an institutional question that should be decided categorically or an individual one?
Time will tell whether one has been called by the Holy Spirit or by vanity or some other reason.
According to medical science, mother and the fetus do not share the same blood. There is a barrier (by deliberate design, we would likely agree) which precludes that from occurring directly.
Otherwise the ties between mother and child are quite strong in many other ways. We may not know the half of it.
Recent findings indicated that tissue, or cells (bodily cells -- I'm not sure which, perhaps skin cells? I don't recall which sort of cell, or if there could be more than one type) were claimed to be taken up and absorbed by the mother, and remain within her own body for years after giving birth, with those of a male fetus said to remain longer than from a female, with these cells from child to mother lingering many years altogether, if memory serves.
If that same memory further properly recalls (near enough) this taking up of bodily cells is something of a one way street -- from fetus to mother -- but very little or nothing the other direction?
But none of this 'circulating the same blood' talk (which you didn't say-- or perhaps do know better than) as in the same blood circulating through the heart and body of Mary, and Jesus as fetus, and his own heart -- then back to Mary, then again back to he who would be the Christ.
Medical knowledge says that not at all likely in normal human development, being that even small amount of blood leakage across the membranes which separate as part of the placenta(?) which functions as two-way exchange interface -- but not quite comparable to being "filter" per se other than for passing nutrients and oxygen, but not blood directly, could be hazardous for the fetus.
Though blood does not pass or flow directlythrough both circulatory systems, being as they are kept separate, the passing of oxygen on to the fetus --- entails the mother breathing --- and that oxygen when dissolved in her own blood then passing on from being pumped by her own heart to the placenta, so that portion of the physical breath of life (oxygen) comes from nowhere except through the mother first, along with nutrients (and possibly water molecules?)
It's something along the lines of the fetus being it's own self contained life from it's beginning formations, and in the 'sac' which develops shortly after implantation, with the later developing fetus all but fated to being sensed as intruder by the mother's own immune system -- IF not for some cellular/chemical trickery as it were, but which considerations taken all together (beyond my own sketchy and probably somewhat erroneous descriptions) leave the fetus, from near hours of implantation on uterine wall, first forming it's sac which shields it from outside intrusions, other than by connection to the placenta which itself begins formation almost simultaneously with the sac.
I do not recall the more precise details in how the masking of "foreign element" of the fetus functions-- but this sort of thing taking place possibly at the placenta(?)
There are better sources online for explanation of course, but to change the subject a bit --- the medical evidence rather blows away the portions of "pro-choice" abortion issue argument, where a woman claims that the fetus is her body. Uh-uh. From implantation, from medical perspective -- that foetus once it begins growth from blastocyst (or a bit before? shortly after?) is it's own life form, though admittedly utterly dependent upon womb & mother.
Which would well enough leave the pro-choice'ers needing change their argument to "IN my a woman's body" from the more stridently proclaimed "it's my body" to more honestly reflect the medical truth that a foetus, in regard to the mother's own circulatory systems -- IS a foreign life form, which means boys and girls -- the fetus is not the mother, long before that same becomes born. This has implications...
But certainly the fetus is a distinct being from the mother. We know this from modern genetics, but even the mistaken embryology of Aristotle and the early Scholastics never identified ontologically or any way but materially the fetus with the mother. The dam, they thought supplied the hyle, the ‘stuff,’ of which the child was made, while the sire supplied the quiddity, the what sort of animal it was.
In any case the Chalcedonion definition of two distinct natures in one hypostasis survives modern genetics and embryology. So, if we understand IHS to be both God and Man in one person, and Mary was the mother of the one person, the we have Mary Theotokos and Deipara and Deigenetrix.
As to the criticisms made of Mariological teaching, every last one depends on graces bestowed by God — something that you'd think would be well received by our antagonists.
I do not think it is any more blasphemous to say IHS owed thanks to Mary than it is to say He suffered, was circumcised, was presented in the temple, was baptized with sinners. This is why I say the real difference is over the Incarnation.
I do not find the word “actual” in serious Eucharistic language. I don't think it means the same thing as real or substantial. (I don't much like ‘real’, but I can work with it.) In matters of this degree of technicality words get important.
Even “truly” has overtones (in English and Hebrew) mostly of reliability.
Remember Quix? When I got him to slow down long enough to get a glimmer of what we mean by “substantially”, he was almost angry to find how close it was to what he means by “spiritually.” I knew more philosophical work needed to be done, but at least we were FINALLY moving away from gristle and blood clots.
As to Mary suffering for the sins of man, all the baptized are offered the same opportunity because we are baptized into Christ. There is nothing remarkable there. It’s all over Paul.
Yes, I understand how that can be. I'll attempt to explain.
It was not for reason that you had said that they shared the same blood (as in the same flowing through one, and then the other) yet many other Catholics have (not your fault they would say so, of course) but for the small portion which I did quote from you, including the less than clear, to me;
with that having followed prior contextual presentation of the concept
which with many other than yourself, judging by their own words, it becomes apparent that in the minds of many there is at least now, since her own dogmatically declared Assumption (and wait! there's more!) there is implied oneness of Mary herself with Christ's two indivisible "natures" (she's Queen of Heaven, sitting at the right hand, etc.)--- with those lines of thought and repetition of word usage, along with many other titles and statements regarding Mary (as Daniel posted short list of) which are similar or related, them corporately all together as 'body of teachings' for *some* Catholics leads far beyond a mere arms wide-open embracing of salutatory titles for Mary such the theological misleading "Co-redemptrix", which as daniel1212 included near the bottom of his comment #210 bringing commentary from Benedict XVI where (writing both as Pope and himself at the same time?) Benedict expressed precautionary towards the title "Co-redemptrix" saying such as;
But the language has been manipulated, and continues to be manipulated even by Benedict.
Persons today attributing continuing heavenly powers to Mary scarcely indistinguishable from those of the Holy Spirit (thus God Himself, theologically speaking) as "only coming from God" but still thru Mary herself as heavenly person-entity, is cover up for making Mary God-like, with that still allowed to continue, said to not be what it is --- for Marion considerations the nature of which I speak towards, most assuredly are significant theological addition.
Foundational support for them can not be found in scripture, or in the Christological debates either, other than by way of argument from silence perhaps, and a purposeful reading-in-between-the-lines of every word otherwise written towards her in adoration & praise. Well, that sort of thing, plus plentiful doses of a "if that-then this" continuation which Benedict himself seemed to prefer be on guard against, even as he craftily protected hyper-Marionism while appearing to tamp it down (somewhat).
Could anyone honestly imagine the Apostle Paul heartily agreeing to the Marion devotions of such as St. Bernard of Clairvaux, and the more thorough "development" of the devotion to "Mary" expressed by St. Louis de Montfort [secret of Mary]???
That latter makes Mary out it to be an indispensable (thus required) and heavenly gateway six ways from Sunday! What was that Benedict XVI was saying again about it being "simply improper to manipulate language?"
wow...just wow...and today there are many (not you I take it) little de Monfortian wanna-be clones runnin' 'round figuratively-rhetorically shaking their rosaries at folks -- and even (I've had this happen to myself here on FR, dealt out to me by one of the most prolific thread OP's) telling those who push back against Montfort-styled hyper-Marionism (for lack of a handier term) that those who speak against the breathless rhetoric (and the theological implications) have committed the unpardonable sin of blaspheming the Holy Ghost --- while no other "Catholic" steps in saying "wait a minute, you are going too far sister", thus leaving Mary here and elsewhere be elevated even higher than Jesus; for He said of Himself that all manner of things said against or about Himself (His own person) could be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Holy Ghost ---not.
Which in that sense, even as to theological consideration, (if one speaks out against the Marion theology and earns for themselves guilt of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit for doing so) puts Mary on par with the Holy Spirit(!), but what the hey -- that's what de Montfort does, without coming right out and admitting in so many words that he does so.
Perhaps de Montfort was oblivious to only but the narrowest hopes he held(?) that everything (as in all graces, and more) flowed thru "Mary" --- WITH NO EXCEPTION if one reads carefully just what he wrote as provided at the one link I provided. There is more along those lines in other writings of his which make everyone out to be so filthy that none can approach even the Eucharist without having Mary come to them (or them go to her) to be first cleansed inwardly by singular ministrations which God Himself (according to de Montfort) has assigned to "Mary" -- alone.
Please forgive me for being so long winded, and for repeating some parts of that which Daniel just posted to you also --- but for these sort of reasons and more, I wrote what I did concerning the blood of Mary & Christ not having "ontological oneness", with this of great significance for the life is in the blood, with that having far reaching theological implications, yes, within discussion of Christ's Incarnation.
The Risen Christ told his disciples that He would go to the Father, and must do so, or the Comforter could not (or would not) be sent to them. There was no mention that at some centuries later date the workings of the Holy Spirit would be transferred over to his own earthly mother (after her own alleged bodily Assumption).
Denial that the theological implications of Marionism have led to this consideration by saying -- but it still all comes from God, just thru "Mary" are as fig leaf hiding the nakedness of the theological addition & change, which has arrived incrementally, step by rhetorical step. I do believe the Apostle Paul would be aghast...
Initially, in the previous note to you, I was just repeating the information concerning the circulatory systems being entirely separate from one another, as much for reason this "oneness" spoken of was one of the points being discussed by yourself, with many Catholics in past times (and here on the pages of FR also) arguing among other things that Mary and Jesus shared the same blood while He was forming in Mary's womb, as support for the concept of this "ontological oneness" of Christ Himself now included Mary too (but to what extent?) for the ontological oneness was being reexamined/discussed, with yourself having made mention of related perceptions of implication as to Mary.
The abortion mentions came about as something of afterthought & addendum, but there also, although one may need focus not on the "sameness" of mother and child, and rather instead the very differences (two separate and individual living entities) happily enough, though that may let some of the air out of a few dedicated Marionist's balloons;
At the same time, very much can possibly be recovered in ideological ground against the Materialists pro-choice persons, as how in mother-child relationship, the individual living human beings are not the same entity.
Granted there is indeed much overlap between mother and child, particularly when that babe is yet to be born, but is in existence. The two persons are not ontologically one even when a babe be yet in the womb --- or else the pro-choice crowd is right, and it's all about only a woman's body, and none other, everybody else should just go mind their own business, nobody has any say whatsoever regarding the yet unborn child.
Actually; that text was hiding, scrolled way off the bottom of the screen when I had saved the first part.
It’s gone now...
(Sorry Curler Fans; but you’ll have to hunt for your own stuff on your own now.)
Still; it DOES have applications here in the RF area.
You must plan your shot carefully...
It REALLY helps to have mates that can clear the way for your shot...
You want to takeout the opposing information right outta the target zone...
Remember; the team with the best ROCK wins!
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.