Posted on 12/14/2014 11:57:21 AM PST by ealgeone
The reason for this article is to determine if the worship/veneration given to Mary by the catholic church is justified from a Biblical perspective. This will be evaluated using the Biblical standard and not man’s standard.
If I recall, Peter didn't have a degree and he was given the keys.....:)
"Touto poieite tan eman anamnasin" (Luke 22:19) (1 Cor. 11:24–25) is more exactly rendered, "Offer this as my memorial offering."
The Protestant Oxford historian J. N. D. Kelly (a scholarly expert on the development of the early Christian Creeds and doctrines, his Early Christian Creeds and Early Christian Doctrines are standard seminary textbooks) writes that in the early Church.
"the Eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian sacrifice. . . . Malachi’s prediction (1:10–11) that the Lord would reject Jewish sacrifices and instead would have "a pure offering" made to him by the Gentiles in every place was seized upon by Christians as a prophecy of the Eucharist. The Didache indeed actually applies the term thusia, or sacrifice, to the Eucharist...This is, of course, Jesus' finished work on the Cross. Although it has its temporal limits (He died on a particular day) it is also an eternal and timeless sacrific, since He is the Lamb "Who was slain before the foundation of the world" --- a Biblical way to saytht this happens in eternity, -- outside of time and space. Thus it is something which can be eternally "present" -- as the Church is given the power to enter into His eternal (timeless) finished work."It was natural for early Christians to think of the Eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfillment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord invested the Last Supper. The words of institution, ‘Do this’ (touto poieite), must have been charged with sacrificial overtones for second-century ears; Justin at any rate understood them to mean, ‘Offer this.’ . . . The bread and wine, moreover, are offered ‘for a memorial (eis anamnasin) of the passion,’ a phrase which in view of his identification of them with the Lord’s body and blood implies much more than an act of purely spiritual recollection" (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines 196–7).
This is what happens at the Mass. It is not so fanciful as some might think, since it is the understanding which the Church explicitly maintained from the first century (Didache) until now.
"Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations’ [Mal. 1:11, 14]" (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).
When what degree came from heaven?
Are you serious? Why are you so afraid to pray to Jesus? I do not understand that. Do you want people to hear what you say? Wow.
I honestly did not know they believe this junk. What is wrong with them? I do not think they are Christians if they believe this.
Did you?
Did you, and then allow yourself to be seduced by that man's own "seducing spirits"?
You want me to indulge myself in this other Gospel DeMontfort preaches, which makes Mary out to be a fourth member of the Trinity, in all but openly declared manner?
Montfort said this also;
I do that daily, and in my sleep too. (I'm not kidding, or exaggerating when I say, "in my sleep").
DeMontfort works (writes) diligently to elevate her above all creation, and all whom would be Christian; making Mary to be now presently (in, or from heavenly, or spirit realms) a singularly required intercessor -- as if -- one cannot ever know or receive full measure from God the Father Himself, without ourselves, and even Himself going through her own offices -- even her very soul (according to DeMontfort).
That kind of teaching is both extra-curricular and contrary to the preaching of Apostle Paul, and the words of Jesus Christ himself.
Meanwhile, being that the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are all of the same substance, all the same essence, to know one is to know them all ---- then it is that person, that Spirit of truth which Christ promised His disciples would be sent ---which is how we are not left as orphans.
Is it not true that the writer of "the Gospel of John" was the same disciple whom Christ from the cross, as He was dying, directed that disciple (John) to look upon Mary as his own mother?
Yet for that, I will say that that was for earthly realm's consideration. Not without love, nor without the Lord's own Spirit which would be sent to them all -- yet not for Mary to be then forever onwards as "heavenly" or spirit mother, although I do well enough understand that many have read that "mother of us all" concept into the texts, even straining to do so at every opportunity to make it out to be that "Mary" has some ongoing, now heavenly role as "dispenser of all graces", and yet further more in seemingly endless, breathless imaginings towards her.
Turning momentarily to another Gospel writer (whom I do think it is safe for us to assume knew both the Messiah, and the mother of His earthly incarnation, as did John the Apostle);
Have you, FourtySeven, as for the above,
25 “These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.
15 No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you.
Compare that with what DeMontfort says about "Mary" and her "secrets", from within #47;
DeMontfort goes on and on and on about how everything flows through "Mary" (and even by her own will and accord also, it must be added that he says) from both directions~! From ourselves to God;
...� (Saint Bernard). And again, �She keeps her Son from striking us; she prevents the devil from harming us; she preserves virtue in us. Like a wise banker, she stores our merits for us...
She keeps the Son from striking us? Mary -- save us from the wrath of your son Jesus?
Compare that to the words of Christ spoken from even the cross as He suffered immense torment in his own flesh concerning those whom done that to him -- Father forgive them for they know not what they do.
And ...Mary (according to DeMontfort) -- the banker, the treasurer of all "merit", the remember-er of human details (provided they dedicate their all -- to her) as if He who is all-knowing would not know better than anyone, included Mary.
And in this, though many will be judged for their works, those hidden in Christ shall be passed over for judgement, having escaped that wrath of God for reason of having our garments washed in the blood -- of the very Lamb which shall do the judging.
Meanwhile Scripture indicates that only the Lamb is worthy to open the Scrolls, and further, to read what is written -- in His own book of life
We do not see "Mary" there (or anywhere else in Scripture!) "seated at the right hand of Jesus" as DeMontfort's gnosticism would have things to be, in heavenly realm.
THat so called "saint" and Bernard of Clairvaux also, if they not themselves have fallen prey to some of the most seducing spirits of them all, that spirit or spirits coming as Angels of Light fooling even the very elect, if possible, most assuredly had provided free reign for those deceiving imitators, who attempt to lure people into the kind of thinking that their own piety and dedication (in other words-- "works") will gain them favor, even grace from God (yet if it be by works, then grace is no longer grace, writes Paul)
What better way to accomplish that insidious subtlety & substitutionary leading from the Way, but to arrive cloaked within robes of Mary in order to fool, if possible, the very elect of God?
As you had said, quoting myself, then wanting me to reconsider things?
This is the portion of your post that I found particularly striking. Striking because in the question itself, a quote is present thst answers that very question.
It still leaves Mary sharing "top billing", for DeMontfort does otherwise place Mary as seated at the right hand of Christ.
I had deliberately included the portion of this being [allegedly] concerning God's own grace towards us, to show how DeMontfort went about packaging these so-called "Secrets of Mary", knowing full well when I did so that someone around here would likely seize upon such as that, for such is the makings of the camouflage and multitudinous excuse-making for how hyper-dulia for Mary, too often slippery-slides right into being indistinguishable from full-on worship of Mary as undeclared fourth member of the Trinity --- with Bernard and DeMontfort writing from out of their own gnosticism (secret knowledge), and that of others also who had gone before them, paving the way yet further, making it all seem so pious and devout, so "spiritual", when the greater reality is that communion with Christ (and thus His Father also) by way of and through the Holy Spirit (not thru "Mary", or her "soul") is not only sufficient, but is the very Way, the Way of the Church from it's beginnings...
Again, from John 14;
(Scratching head...), you want documented data from him so you can be a fan? (more head scratching...)??
There's been no flippant rejection of RCC teaching.
It's claims have been compared to Scripture and found wanting.
They are in error, simply not found in Scripture in the least, therefore rightly rejected.
And that verse is so taken out of context by the Catholics in a vain bid to claim ultimate authority over believers and compel submission to it.
The context is simply for settling disputes between believers, not giving the governing body of any church ultimate authority to tell God how it’s going to be.
How you can hate Jesus’s mother is beyond me.
Yep. Are you still going to be in Manhattan (if you don’t mind saying)?
Instead of Mary who is dead, why not get one of Jesus? After all, he is the answer, not someone who is dead.
No. Nobody has to practice self-anything to get into heaven.
And your soul does not perish when you say *I did enough*. Your soul was already perished.
As long as *I* is in it at all, you will not be saved.
It's JESUS did it for me.
No, self-denial not is the way of salvation, death to self is. When we die in Christ, we are raised with Him, and it's nothing we do to earn it or deserve it as it's by grace, without effort on our part.
And Jesus showed us how to pray to GOD.
Why then, don't y'all follow Mary's instructions to do whatever He tells you?
Maybe...I would care to?
I have done so on this forum previously, on multiple occasions...
Yet to cover that subject with something more than mere argument by assertion --- in other words to establish the position be accurate, sound, and reasonable, while also getting ahead of, countering and accounting for the usual apologetic towards indiscriminate full inclusion of OT Apocrypha into canon proper, would take something of a 4-part (count'em -4) answer.
Though I must say that CB summed things up rather succinctly.
Yes it is astounding the burden that has been placed on Mary, the handmaid of the Lord, by Catholicism.
Christians love Mary and treat her with the respect due her.
90.45 ποιέωa: a marker of an agent relation with a numerable event—‘to do, to perform, to practice, to make.’ διδάσκων καὶ πορείαν ποιούμενος εἰς Ιεροσόλυμα ‘teaching as he made a journey to Jerusalem’ Lk 13:22; οἱ μαθηταὶ Ἰωάννου νηστεύουσιν πυκνὰ καὶ δεήσεις ποιοῦνται ‘John’s disciples often fast and pray’ Lk 5:33; τῷ σῷ ὀνόματι δυνάμεις πολλὰς ἐποιήσαμεν ‘in your name we did many miracles’ Mt 7:22; πίστει πεποίηκεν τὸ πάσχα ‘by faith he performed the Passover’ He 11:28.So I have found no basis for the translation you have offered. ποιεῖτε is just "do," not "offer." Your translation is even errant with respect to the double use of "offer." Here's the Greek from Luke 22:19 (same phrase as used in 1 Corinthians 11:24-25):
τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησινWhich renders out like this:
τοῦτο [this] ποιεῖτε [do] εἰς [for the purpose of] τὴν [the] ἐμὴν [of me] ἀνάμνησιν [a reminder]There is no repeating word, even in root form, anywhere in that phrase. I strongly recommend you check out the source of your translation. Without being able to see how they derived it, I am forced to conclude it was, shall we say, a highly eclectic approach to a rather ordinary directive (imperative) to do, make, or continue something, and the purpose for doing it is to have the meal serve as a reminder. This is pretty open and shut. But if you have a site, I would be fascinated how they came to this despite all the excellent lexicons and translations having an entirely different outcome.
And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.So how are we supposed to think about the sacrifice of Christ and time? It's spelled out here:
(Revelation 13:7-8)
Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. (Hebrews 9:25-26)Here we have the author of Hebrews speaking clearly within the temporal frame of reference. This is how God, by divine inspiration, wants us to think about the time element of Jesus' sacrifice. He does not offer himself often, in our time reference, as the priests did offer their sacrifices. Yet that would be a necessary way of speaking if the priests too were time traveling forward to the cross. Because although it may have only one occurrence in "Nirvana time," we would observe it as multiple occurrences in human time.
I posted a link from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Your argument is, as always, with the Catholic Church into which you are baptized.
You were complaining about me wanting to use labels and you were doing it yourself.
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.