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.
No, I just do NOT want opinions, guesses and speculations as a way of forming a conclusion in the matter.
Thank you for being the only ex-Catholic to answer, and to do so with out being insulting.
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.
the early use of "Eucharist," even here in the Didache, revolved around its root sense, which is simply "thanksgiving," and we already know there can be a sacrifice of thanksgiving without implying any sort of propitiatory effect. In other words, the sort of sacrifice described in the Didache matches well with the category of thanksgiving as sacrifice. This has no bearing on Aritotelian notions of substance versus accidence. The early believers would be stunned to hear such things read into their expression of thankfulness, which thankfulness is a wholesome response to the memory of what Jesus has done for us.
As for the time travel theory of that hypothetically protects the "finished" nature of the event with it's perpetuity in practice, it is a completely specious invention that has no grounding in Scripture. We do not know that God relates to time as some sort of Eternal Present. That notion comes to us by suspect passage from eastern concepts of Nirvana et al. It is not the Hebraic notion of God's relationship to time. We say as a Hebraism that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world because Hebrew prophecy can state the present or the future as the "prophetic past tense,"...So how are we supposed to think about the sacrifice of Christ and time? It's spelled out here: 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)
Very good. I wanted to save this. bless God.
How you can equate the frigid woman ROME has created to Jesus’ mother is beyond me.
7 Catholic churches in Asia no longer exist.
Amazing that no Catholic wants to touch the subject.
Wrote in 1959?
What about the words of RCC FATHER’S written a thousand years ago that You reference?
As has been shown multiple times, as even 3 days ago, but some RCs have such a cultic devotion that no matter how many times they are corrected, and their arguments for 1Cor. 11 are exposed as erroneous, as well as for praying to created beings in Heaven, the hyperexaltation of Mary, salvation based on becoming good enough, etc , they must defend Rome at any cost to objectivity and credibility, thus becoming argument for why one should not be a RC.
There was a reason the Lord said,
Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. (Matthew 15:14)
But sometimes for the sake of others such must be refuted again and again.
What was Peter’s degree in?
No one does!
Have you confused them with MORMON?
Quite obvious. Even Ratzinger said Mary is quite marginal in the gospels. But as with Mormonism (which also has taught of a Heavenly Mother), when Scripture is not your supreme authority, but the church autocratically is, then all sorts of fables can be taught as being the word of God.
No need to think, my son.
The prots will merely confuse you.
Follow the catechism teachings and you’ll never stray.
Quit complaining about the goalposts moving and KICK the thing!
I have NEGATIVE ‘respect’ for the creature your chosen religious organization has invented!!!
Mix blue with it to get purple.
Jesus says pray to the Father and you're still trying to contact some dead person?
Being an EXcatholic tends to make one less insulting.
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.
Well, while they attack evangelicals, which testify to greater unity on the ground in conservative basic values and Truths than the fruit of Rome, for not engaging interpretation of their supreme authority, it is very manifest that RCs must do the same, often at whatever the cost to credulity.
While it is obvious that parts of V2 are contrary to past RC teaching, as SSPX and SSPV groups contend (though the past is also has much that is erroneous), and that V2 actually does teach that Muslims and Caths together adore [worship] the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day, yet as with certain liberal papal statements, this must be spinned to negate the obvious import.
και δωσω σοι τας κλεις της βασιλειας των ουρανων και ο εαν δησης επι της γης εσται δεδεμενον εν τοις ουρανοις και ο εαν λυσης επι της γης εσται λελυμενον εν τοις ουρανοις (Matthew 16:19)
αμην λεγω υμιν οσα εαν δησητε επι της γης εσται δεδεμενα εν τω ουρανω και οσα εαν λυσητε επι της γης εσται λελυμενα εν τω ουρανω (Matthew 18:18)
There, I highlighted them for you.
Kecharitomene (one form of the verb "charitoo") in Lk. 1:28, is never used for "full" elsewhere, but Lk. 1:28 simply says she was graced, favored, enriched with grace, as in Eph.1:6.
Much more technical here :
And the translators of the official Catholic NAB Bible also render Lk. 1:28 as "Hail, favored one!"
Nor from what i read does kecharitomene being a perfect passive participle translate into meaning a "a perfection of grace," or distinctively a past action, in distinction to echaritosen (another form of the verb "charitoo") used in Eph. 1:6, as there also it refers to a present state based upon a past action, "To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted [echaritosen] in the beloved." (Ephesians 1:6) More at source.
,In contrast, the only one (though Stephen in Acts 6:8, in some mss) said to be full of grace is the Lord Jesus, "full ("plērēs) of grace (charis) and truth." (Jn. 1:14) The reason "plērēs" is not used in Lk. 1:28 is because plērēs actually does denote "full" 17 other places in the NT., and thus it is used of the one who was/is unmistakably full of grace and Truth. If Mary was perfectly full of grace as bearing Christ then it would say she was full of grace, but it does not.
And Swan notes,
I was though pleased recently to hear Roman Catholic Magisterium interpreter Jimmy Akin say of Luke 1:28 on the word kecharitomene: "This is a Greek term that you could use in that exact grammatical formation for someone else who wasn't immaculately conceived and the sentence would still make sense." He then gives the example of using the term of Mary's grandmother. He also stated, "This is something where I said previously, we need the additional source of information from tradition and we need the guidance of the magisterium to be able to put these pieces together." This is a frank admission that the text does not plainly support the Roman Catholic interpretation and needs to be supplemented by another ultimate authority. In other words, the IC must be read into Luke 1:28.
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.