Posted on 06/25/2015 1:13:01 PM PDT by RnMomof7
Long before Jesus turned water into wine, He turned Mary’s amniotic fluid into meconium, and her breast milk into transitional stools. Anyone who has ever changed a child’s diaper knows that the resulting odor offends the nostrils greatly. As Jesus would later instruct us, “whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly” and ends up in the toilet (Matthew 15:17), or in His case as an infant, in the diaper. Thus did Jesus’ lower gastrointestinal tract operate as it must for all men, and thus did our Lord endure the gastrocolic reflex, as all we mortals do. We therefore have no doubt that Mary’s milk passed through Him according to the course of nature, and into His diapers in a common and necessary movement. And thus did Jesus come all the way down to earth to save us, “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities” (Hebrews 4:15).
If that opening paragraph offends you, you do not know why Jesus came to earth, and you have not understood the Gospel. Jesus did not come to seek the whole, for the “whole need not a physician” (Matthew 9:12). He “came not to call the righteous” (Luke 5:32), for the righteous have no need of a Savior. He did not come to avoid sinners, but to find them. He touched lepers and whores (Mark 1:41, Luke 7:39), asked for a drink from an adulteress (John 4:7), asked for lodging from a tax collector (Luke 19:5), was adored by prostitutes (Luke 7:37-38), feted by sinners (Luke 5:29) and pursued by the ceremonially unclean, and He received them (Matthew 9:20, Luke 17:14).
In short, He is the sinners’ Savior, and He came to earth to pursue them, not to avoid them (1 Timothy 1:15). To find sinners, He became a man like us. Not a man like us in all ways but sweat and dirt. Not a man like us in all ways but meconium. He became a man like us—”touched with the feeling of our infirmities”—in all ways but sin (Hebrews 4:15). And as if it were not enough that His feet were soiled to walk among us, He stooped even further and soiled His hands as well (John 8:6). Thus Jesus truly condescended to be born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.
Except, say our Roman Catholic acquaintances, such condescension must have its limits. There is only so much stooping God can do without soiling Himself beyond what He can bear. Sure, He fixed his tabernacle among His people, but God ministers at the door of the Tabernacle (Exodus 33:9), and that tabernacle is Mary. And such a tabernacle would need to be sinless. But aside from having a sinless mother, Jesus condescended to be born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.
Except, of course, being sinless, the womb of Mary was a step up, not a step down, from Heaven. He actually did not, and could not, condescend all the way to our level, say the Roman Catholics:
“The womb of Mary—I will not call it womb, but temple; … the more secret tabernacle, … Yea verily above the heavens must Mary’s womb be accounted, since it sent back the Son of God to heaven more glorious than He had come down from heaven.” (St. Maximus, Homily V)
Thus, while it is true that Jesus “humbled” Himself to become man, He did not so humble Himself that He actually came down from heaven. No, by the testimony of Rome’s saints, He actually went up into Mary’s womb! So aside from having a sinless mother, and a first earthly home that was actually higher than the heavens that He had left behind, Jesus condescended to be born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.
Except, of course, for the fact that He was raised in a perfectly sinless home. Someone as holy as Jesus could not come this far and then live in a household contaminated by the sins He had come to take away. Therefore, Joseph must have been preserved from sin, too. The Apparition of Joseph in 1956 assured Sister Mary Ephrem that “immediately after my conception … because of my exceptional role of future Virgin-Father … I was from that moment confirmed in grace and never had the slightest stain on my soul.” So, aside from having a sinless mother, and a first earthly home that was higher, not lower, than the heavens, and aside from having a sinless step-father, Jesus condescended to be born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.
Except, of course, for the fact that His cousin, John the Baptist, the herald of the King, also lived a life without sin. This “acceptable belief,” as you can read here, is freely accepted as true by Roman Catholics. As one member of the Catholic Answers forum explains, “It is crystal clear from Scripture that St. John the Baptist was baptized within his mother’s womb … [and] was free of all sin from that point on.”
So widespread is this “pious belief,” that even Pope John XXIII in 1960 taught the logical implications of it: namely that Joseph and John the Baptist must have been assumed bodily into heaven, just as Jesus and Mary had been. “So we may piously believe,” said John XXIII, that the grace of assumption into heaven, so recently and infallibly declared for Mary in 1950, was also granted both to John the Baptist and to Joseph (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. 52 (1960) 456). So, aside from having a sinless mother, and a first earthly home that was higher, not lower, than the heavens, and aside from having a sinless step-father, and a sinless cousin, Jesus condescended to be born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.
Except, of course, the fact that all of the apostles were sinless, too. That this is “acceptable belief” in Rome is evidenced from another writer at the Catholic Answers forum, who holds that not only the apostles, but many, many Roman Catholics led perfectly sinless lives after encountering Christ:
“What is being said is that they led sinless, blameless lives with the help of God’s grace. … Not only the Apostles, but many Saints, Martyrs, Fathers, desert fathers, Confessors and other members of the Church led sinless, blameless lives.”
So, aside from having a sinless mother, and a first earthly home that was higher, not lower, than the heavens, and aside from having a sinless step-father, a sinless cousin, and sinless apostles, disciples, saints, martyrs and other members of the church, Jesus condescended to be born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.
Except, of course, that His maternal grandparents must have been “profoundly pure” as well. Consider this pious tradition of the conception of Mary in the womb of St. Anne. If Mary was housed in her mother, Anne, and Mary was the tabernacle, then that would make Anne “the inner sanctuary in which was formed the living tabernacle which was to house the Son of God made Man.”
It is thus difficult for Roman Catholics to picture in their minds that Mary had been conceived through normal, biological, copulative processes, including the physical pleasure and all of the attendant physical intimacy between man and wife. So taught Christopher West in his lecture, Theology of the Body and Our Lady of Fatima:
“In the east, do you know how they depict the Immaculate ConceptIon? … The icon is of a chaste embrace between Joachim and Anne, with the marriage bed behind them. How is it possible that their marital embrace led to the immaculate conception, if their hearts had not also in some way been made profoundly pure.”(59:30-1:00:40)
It is apparently inconceivable to Mr. West that Mary might have been conceived in an intimate sexual embrace, her parents lying down in bed, naked, enjoying the sheer physical pleasure that, as Paul wrote, was the “proper gift of God” to each of them (1 Corinthians 7:7). No, their hearts had to be “profoundly pure,” and that level of purity does not countenance the horizontality of unashamedly pleasurable marital sex.
So, aside from having a sinless mother, and a first earthly home that was higher, not lower, than the heavens, and aside from having a sinless step-father, a sinless cousin, sinless apostles, disciples, saints, martyrs and other members of the church, and “profoundly pure” maternal grandparents, Jesus was born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.
The point we are making is that Jesus was incarnated to save sinners, yet Rome has built up a religion that is intent on saving Jesus from the sinners He came to save! We see this in the march of Roman Catholic tradition that is constantly expanding the circle of sinlessness that surrounds this Man who, so we thought, had come to dine with sinners, touch lepers and be worshiped by prostitutes. Is it unfathomable that Jesus, Who freely and deliberately dined and lodged with sinners might have taken up His first residence in one, and received His first meal from one? Is it unfathomable that Jesus, Who left Heaven to find sinners might have included among them a mother, a step-father, a cousin and two grandparents who were as eager to be cleansed of their sin as the harlots and lepers? To Roman Catholics, the answer is yes—it is unfathomable. So far removed is Jesus from sinners in the religion of Rome, that to approach Him to be cleansed, one must already be clean.
But this not the only way Rome separates Jesus from the sinners He came to save. We are all too familiar with Mary’s alleged role as “mediatress.” Yes, Roman Catholics tell us, there is one mediator between God and men, the Man Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5), but despite His incarnation, Jesus’ divinity is still a hindrance, not a help, to His mediation. Read as Roman apologist William Most cleverly transitions from Jesus being “the answer,” to Mary being the much better answer, because her humanity makes her better qualified than Jesus to mediate on our behalf:
“How then can I understand God, how [to] know what He wills, how to deal with him? But In Jesus we have the answer. … Yes, but His heart is the heart of a Divine Person. However, her heart is purely, entirely human, … So her Immaculate Heart can and does assure us we have in heaven an Advocate whom we can understand, who understands us, who loves us to the extent that like the Father, she did not spare her only Son, but gave Him up for all of us” (Most, William G., Mary’s Cooperation in Our Redemption)
But even this cannot be sufficient for Rome, who ever strives by remarkable ingenuity to separate sinners further from their Savior. It is true, says Rome, that Mary is the Mediatress of all graces, and every grace that flows to us from Jesus comes through Mary. But every grace from Mary must necessarily flow through Joseph. In his book, True Devotion to St. Joseph and the Church, Fr. Domenico, makes the case:
“It seems fitting then that by his intercession St. Joseph should now obtain all the graces that Our Lady dispenses to the human race. … these grace come through Mary first, and then through St. Joseph who obtains them only through her. … all the other saints rely on St. Joseph in their intercessions, just as St. Joseph relies on the mediation of Our Lady.” (True Devotion to St. Joseph, 381, 383, 400).
One Mediator can never be enough, nor two, nor three, so far removed is Jesus from sinners in the religion of Rome.
But there is yet another way Rome separates Christ from sinners, and that is by reducing Jesus’ death on the cross to merely a symbolic gesture. It was hardly necessary to die and bleed, they say, but Jesus did it anyway—not to pay for sins, but to demonstrate the horror of sin. So taught Fr. William Most:
“Really an incarnation in a palace with no suffering or death would have been an infinite reparation. Yet to show the horror of sin, and the immensity of His love, the Father willed, and He agreed, to go so dreadfully far.” (Most, William, Eschatology).
That is completely contrary to the Scriptures (Hebrews 2:14-17, 9:22), for “it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren … to make reconciliation for the sins of the people,” for “without shedding of blood is no remission.” Yet as it turns out, in Rome, the real sacrifice of Jesus was not what He offered on the cross at all, but the bread He offered the night before in the Last Supper. That, we are told, was the real sacrifice:
“Those who crucified Christ did so at the sixth hour. But Jesus our High Priest immolated the lamb which He took towards the evening [the night before], when He celebrated the paschal banquet with His disciples and imparted to them the sacred mysteries.”
Indeed, Rome teaches that Jesus’ death on the cross was not an offering for sin. They do not hide this, but say it proudly and openly as the Catholic Legate demonstrates:
“The Last Supper was the real sacrificial offering of Christ for sin and it certainly was unbloody. Without the Last Supper I defy you to find any reference to the Body and Blood of Christ being offered as a sacrifice for sin in the entire of the Passion Narratives.”
Thus does the religion of Rome nullify the incarnation and “make the cross of Christ of none effect” (1 Corinthians 1:17)—as if Paul had not said we have access to the Father by the blood of the cross (Ephesians 2:13-19), and Peter had not said Jesus “bare our sins in his own body on the tree ” (1 Peter 2:24-3:18), and as if Hebrews did not instruct us that Jesus is “mediator of the new testament … by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions” (Hebrews 9:15). Rome would have Him mediate the new covenant, without blood, without death, without the cross and without suffering for our transgressions, for “an incarnation in a palace with no suffering or death” would have sufficed.
Couple this with the visions of Mary, and what we find is an utter and absolute denial of everything the incarnation was to accomplish. The visions of Mary teach Roman Catholics that it is Jesus Who is angry at them, and that Mary is holding back His wrath, and she is suffering for them—contrary to Romans 5:9 which assures us that “we shall be saved from wrath through him.” The visions of Mary also teach that it is Jesus Who needs to be consoled by our sufferings—contrary to 2 Corinthians 1:5 which assures us that “as the sufferings of Christ abound in us, so our consolation also aboundeth by Christ.” Compare these Scripture verses, above, with what the apparitions of Mary teach (Both of these visions and messages, La Salette and Akita, have the ecclesiastical approval of the Roman religion):
“If my people will not obey I shall be compelled to loose my Son’s arm. It is so heavy, so pressing that I can no longer restrain it. How long I have suffered for you! If my Son is not to cast you off, I am obliged to entreat Him without ceasing.” (Apparition of Mary in LaSalette, France to Maximin Giraud and Melanie Mathieu, 1846)
“Many men in this world afflict the Lord. I desire souls to console Him to soften the anger of the Heavenly Father. I wish, with my Son, for souls who will repair by their suffering and their poverty for the sinners and ingrates.” (Apparition of Mary in Akita, Japan, to Sr. Agnes Sasagawa, 1973)
So far removed is Jesus from sinners in the religion of Rome, that we are told that Jesus is angry with us, and that we must suffer to console Him and save Him from His Father’s wrath! Is not the sum total of Rome’s doctrines a material denial of the incarnation?
Consider Rome’s teachings in light of John’s instruction in his first epistle. 1 John is an exquisite magnification of the incarnation, “which we have heard, … seen with our eyes, … looked upon, and our hands have handled,” (1 John 1:1). If we have sinned, there is a Mediator for us, for “we have an advocate with the Father” (1 John 2:1). “God … sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins” and “your sins are forgiven you for his name’s sake.” (1 John 2:12, 4:10). “He was manifested to take away our sins” (1 John 3:1). All these speak of an incarnation that provided us with one Mediator, provided us with one propitiation for our sins, and let us boldly approach Him (1 John 4:17) not because we are without sins (1 John 1:8-10), but because He Himself has made propitiation for them. “This is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son” (1 John 5:11). But Rome denies this record. The Serpent attempted to prevent the incarnation from occurring (Revelation 12:4), and failing that, now every effort is made by Rome to undo all of the benefits to be gained from it.
Did Jesus come in the flesh to seek and save sinners? Rome responds by surrounding Him with as many sinless people as possible to make Him distant an inaccessible to those who need Him.
Did Jesus come in the flesh to make a propitiation to the Father? Rome responds by relegating His sacrifice to the background—merely a profound gesture that was not strictly necessary—and making the real sacrifice an unbloody one the night before the crucifixion, when He “offered” bread for sins of the world.
Did Jesus come in the flesh to die, making peace through the blood of His cross? Rome responds by teaching that every sin Jesus pays for just makes the Father and Jesus angrier and angrier, and it is we who must, by our sufferings, make reparation for sin and thus save Jesus from His Father’s wrath.
Did Jesus become a man to be a Mediator between God and His people? Rome responds by adding as many mediators as possible between Jesus and sinners, as if His incarnation had failed, and left Him incapacitated, unfit and unable to serve.
Was Jesus “made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death” (Hebrews 2:9)? Rome responds by saying He was made higher than the heavens, so high is Mary’s womb above the children of men. The leisure of a palace, they say, instead of the humiliation of the cross, would have sufficed as a reparation.
Like the disciples, Rome would send away the unclean (Matthew 15:23), keep the simple from approaching Him (Luke 18:16), and rebuke Jesus for dying on the cross (Matthew 16:22)—for Rome has “taken away the key of knowledge,” not entering themselves, and hindering those who would (Luke 11:52).
When John wrote, “every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God” (1 John 4:3), he did not write this as an isolated formulaic incantation. He did not write this as if the mere recitation of the Nicæan Creed was sufficient as a substitute for faith in what had really been accomplished in the incarnation. John wrote this in the context of an incarnation that guaranteed to us a propitiation for sins and the favorable disposition of our heavenly Father, that provided us an Advocate who took on flesh to represent us and intercede before Him, that comforted us with an assurance of pardon for our sin through an accessible Savior Who hears us when we call upon Him. All these things are in practice denied by Rome, and we are offered no peace, no security, an angry Father, an angry Son, an endless line of mediators and a Savior unable to sympathize with our weakness, unapproachable and inaccessible except by those who are already “whole” and already “righteous.”
We hold therefore that when John wrote, “he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.” (1 John 5:10), it is proof that the religion of Rome, at its core, is a rejection of the incarnation, for Rome has done all in its power to nullify it and make God a liar. Does Rome recite the Nicæan Creed? Well did Isaiah speak of her:
“Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:” (Isaiah 29:13).
The priests of Rome honor the incarnation with their lips, but by removing Jesus from sinners, they have denied the incarnation, and have removed their hearts from God.
“For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” (Hebrews 4:15)
Therefore it follows that the accidents continue in this sacrament without a subject. This can be done by Divine power: for since an effect depends more upon the first cause than on the second, God Who is the first cause both of substance and accident, can by His unlimited power preserve an accident in existence when the substance is withdrawn whereby it was preserved in existence as by its proper cause, just as without natural causes He can produce other effects of natural causes, even as He formed a human body in the Virgin's womb, "without the seed of man" (Hymn for Christmas, First Vespers).
Available here: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4077.htmAquinas goes to great lengths to justify this expression of nothingness. The trick is to call it what we "know" the substance to be. In our case of the river, we just call it a lead cube, because that's what's "really" there. And if you doubt such a thing can be, why, you have denied the power exemplified in the incarnation. Yet his comparison of these two events is as wrongheaded as it can be. Read the context at the link. He doesn't even attempt to show, at least not here, nor anywhere I know about, how a true physical miracle like the incarnation, which produced real, testable, physical effects (as well as spiritual), is even remotely like a "miracle" that consists of ignoring definitions to achieve it's alleged effect.
And now I should wish to meet him who says or believes that we are initiated by the slaughter and blood of an infant. Think you that it can be possible for so tender, so little a body to receive those fatal wounds; for any one to shed, pour forth, and drain that new blood of a youngling, and of a man scarcely come into existence? No one can believe this, except one who can dare to do it. And I see that you at one time expose your begotten children to wild beasts and to birds; at another, that you crush them when strangled with a miserable kind of death. There are some women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels, and thus commit a parricide before they bring forth. And these things assuredly come down from the teaching of your gods. For Saturn did not expose his children, but devoured them. With reason were infants sacrificed to him by parents in some parts of Africa, caresses and kisses repressing their crying, that a weeping victim might not be sacrificed. Moreover, among the Tauri of Pontus, and to the Egyptian Busiris, it was a sacred rite to immolate their guests, and for the Galli to slaughter to Mercury human, or rather inhuman, sacrifices. The Roman sacrificers buried living a Greek man and a Greek woman, a Gallic man and a Gallic woman; and to this day, Jupiter Latiaris is worshipped by them with murder; and, what is worthy of the son of Saturn, he is gorged with the blood of an evil and criminal man. I believe that he himself taught Catiline to conspire under a compact of blood, and Bellona to steep her sacred rites with a draught of human gore, and taught men to heal epilepsy with the blood of a man, that is, with a worse disease. They also are not unlike to him who devour the wild beasts from the arena, besmeared and stained with blood, or fattened with the limbs or the entrails of men. To us it is not lawful either to see or to hear of homicide; and so much do we shrink from human blood, that we do not use the blood even of eatable animals in our food.This document is believed to be written near the end of the Second Century. The writer's rebuttal to the charge of cannibalism is two-fold. First, he says his pagan friend suspects the Christians of child-murder and blood drinking because the pagans are accustomed to such violence and so can imagine it in others. In modern terms, he is saying his pagan friend is guilty of projection.
Available here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0410.htm
I have decided to just call the leadership of this magic mystery cult, the Magicsteeringthem. The poor souls who sincerely seek a relationship with God are being steeped in sacrilege that mocks God’s commands. Such a situation would appear to shout ‘demonic brillaince’ but the Magisteeringthem insists it is the sacred and holy catholic and apostolic church, the same church which features an interesting period of popes known as the Rule by Harlots century.
You know who the Bible says is full of grace... and it was not Mary as far as I can tell...
John 1:14
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Members of His family may now enter into God's Presence freely, being sealed and Justified by His Life in them by adoption. Presumably, the Magixsteeringthem has allowed that the mother of their god can be in the family of their god, but that does pose difficulties if she is the mother of their god and must enter the family by their savior's blood ingested.
The Golden Pelican was a new one though.
I can hear Mary's mom now:
"Girl... when you ever gonna give me some more grandchillen?"
I guess by today's standard, the blessed Mary, ever virgin would be called a baby factory. She had at least 7 kids. 😱 How many more grandchillen do you think Mary's mother needed? 😂
I would like to point out that one can receive Holy Communion in good faith without this sort of hyper-think. Little children can receive. Downs Syndrome people and others with mental disability, can receive. I think that for one who has attained the age of reason, a simple "Amen" to the words "This is My Body" is sufficient.
And furthermore, the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of the Eucharist from the non-Latin Catholic churches which never historically batted things back and forth in a Aristotelian-Scholastic intellectual milieu, and don't use the terms associated with that brand of ontology.
The Catholic Church recognizes, too, the validity of the Eucharist as practiced by our separated brethren, the Orthodox, and I think such Apostolic churches as the Armenians (which are not even exactly Orthodox: they are non-Chalcedonian) although they, like the other non-Latins, do not advert to Thomistic terminology like "transubstantiation."
There are some people on both sides of the "Real Presence" question who relish this level of dispute, but not me. To my feeble brain, it's like Algebra II: I can use the terms and pass the test, but I can't really grasp what I'm doing. I am not (ahem) "gifted" at that level of abstraction.
(Come to think of it, 45+ years later, Algebra II could still probably give me an anxiety attack.)
One point I can make: please drop the phrase "literal" body in the context of Eucharist. The "Real Presence" does not mean that the consecrated Eucharist has physiological functions (e.g. respiration, digestion, excretion, etc.) which I guess would be the meaning of a "literal" living body.
(Although: a "literal" glorified, resurrected Body? Are our bodies going to have physiological function? Jesus did eat fish! But did He metabolize it? But anyway...)
That's why it's always a safe bet to use Jesus' words like "real" and "true."
That's not just a typo, it's a brain-thud.
Actually, MHGinTN, that is a falsehood.
It's two falsehoods: (1) the Magisterium (correct terminology promotes respectful dialogue) does not teach that Mary is a goddess, and (2) the Magisterium does not teach that we appeal to Mary when our "sacrifice is not available," whatever that means.
Telling falsehoods about other people's faith is contrary to what the Bible, the Word of God, teaches.
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
I am your neighbor.
Please keep that in mind.
What I do mind is you telling me what I supposedly believe --- and when you're corrected (because it's not what I believe) you keep repeating it nevertheless.
. That's false witness, as in "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
I am your neighbor. I wish you'd keep that in mind.
“What I do mind is you telling me what I supposedly believe -— and when you’re corrected (because it’s not what I believe) you keep repeating it nevertheless.”
Mrs. Don-O, in this case, you didn’t specify what I told you that you (supposedly) believe, so I’m in the dark on this. If I assumed the wrong thing, I apologize in advance. That was not my intent.
Now, if you will share with me what you are referring to, I will also know what offended you and can understand what you are referring to or if there is a misunderstanding. Also, please tell me what you’ve corrected about multiple times.
[You must know that men have no idea what women think. Heck, sometimes I don’t even understand what my wife is thinking. I do try hard, but remember, women don’t even understand women, let alone men understanding women. I’ve been stripped of all the advantages of communication: the facial expressions, breaths, body language... Throw in the limited communication by text alone and men are practically disabled!]
I do respect you though and I assure you I did not intentionally do something to offend you. If I ever jumped the shark and wanted to offend you, it would be obvious. By the grace of God, I don’t try.
Best.
Ah, another example of Magicsteeringthem magic mumbo jumbo.
After studying your religion, I am no longer of a mind to respect it or anyone who so arduously defends the blasphemies and heresies which hallmark Catholicism. When your religion insults the Mother of Jesus by making claims that she can save people and is a doorway to salvation, and can be appealed to (she is a dead person, so that alone is a forbidden practice called necromancy) to get her to appeal to Christ for you, well such foolishness, regardless of how many centuries such hersey has been taught as catholic dogma, marks your mystery religion as false. A poor counterfeit devised by a very cunning mind who hates The Truth, The Way, and The Light.
If I did not, after studying the shocking blasphemies in catholicisim, warn my neighbors, I am to be held accountable for not sounding the warning and sharing the Gospel of Grace in Christ Jesus, the hallmark of which is immediate Justification then a life of sanctification by His indwelling life in the Believer/the Faither in Christ as Messiah and Lord.
You asserted, "I am your neighbor. Please keep that in mind." Since I know you live but a few miles from me in East Tennessee, are you trying to issue a vague threat?
As for items where you misrepresent what the Catholic Church teaches, and thus what I believe as a Catholic, we'll start with a few from just one recent post, #180, where you undertook to explain to RnMomof7 what I believe as a Catholic, and why.
There are a lot of elements of pre-Christian culture in Catholicism, such as: Wedding rings. Syllogisms. Brides in white. Burying our dead in caskets. Flowers on graves. Philosophy. Prayer breakfasts. Banners and flags. Formal logic. (And hundreds more, but let's keep this reasonably short.) These are customs purified of their idolatrous content and remade in forms compatible with Christianity. They constitute neither syncretism nor idolatry. They do not "turn the glorious Gospel of Grace into a system of religious works"
False.
Jumble of falsehoods.Now, I'll personally admit hamsterish ways (I happen to be eating sunflower seeds just now) --- But to say "hamster wheel" is to say devotional acts are done unmindfully, which they are not. To insinuate that sacraments and stations indicate pagan belief and replace an intimate relationship with God, is likewise false.
False.
False. She is a handmaid and a creature, not a demigoddess.
False.
False, she is not a demigoddess.
False. Being human, Mary has the same kind of human nature as our first ancestors Adam and Eve. She has every urge or desire common to humanity.
False. It's true that she's lower than God, but false that she is above humanity.
That's actually true, but so will you, when you are a saint in heaven (a destiny I desire for you.) We won't be omnipotent (we'll always be infinitely short of that) but still, we'll have gifts such that "eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the mind of man to imagine"Hearing everyone simultaneously is probably one of the least of them, since it's almost possible NOW via AI technology. What God can do for us has to be far more, unimaginably more, than what we can do now, with e.g. Japanese robotics coupled with cloud technology.
False.
That's true, but that doesn't constitute idolatry. There are shrines to Washington and Lincoln in DC --- if they haven't yet been dynamited in the current fever-phase of secular anti-American iconoclasm. It doesn't indicate adoration, but veneration. If you don't grasp the difference, you might end up with the mob leveling sites of civic veneration, such as the Jefferson Memorial, or the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.
If you are referring to the Woman of the Apocalypse (Revelation 11:19 - 12:1), this has attracted a variety of interpretations; but there is no teaching that Mary rules over the sun, moon, and stars. In fact, I hadn't heard of such a thing until I read it from you.Interestingly, though, something similar was said of the OT Joseph, the son of Jacob: (Genesis 37:9) "He had another dream, and he told it to his brothers. "Listen," he said, "I had another dream, and this time the sun and moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me."
And that famously bothered the heck out of his brothers. I think that was because they didn't understand the image.
That same thing seems to be happening here with Mary: you don't understand the image, so you proclaim your own wrong-headed notion, and identify that to be what I believe.
Did you ask me first?
Did you ask any Catholic whether this was a true account of their beliefs?
That is the whole offense in a nutshell: ascribing beliefs to me and to other Catholics, based not on the actual teachings of the Catholic Church, but upon your own unfortunate misunderstandings; and then, what's really unjustifiable, failing to correct this once it's pointed out to you.
You even repeat the falsehoods, even after being informed that that's not what we believe. That's rude, and aggravating.
As I said, I don't mind at all if you tell me what your beliefs are. I do mind when you tell me what MY beliefs are, especially when you've got it wrong.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3304228/posts?page=234#234
As for this:"You asserted, "I am your neighbor. Please keep that in mind." Since I know you live but a few miles from me in East Tennessee, are you trying to issue a vague threat?"
Paranoid, much? Or just flinging out casual calumnies at random?
I bear you not a trace of ill-will; but if you are going to construe my use of the innocent word "neighbor" (referring to Exodus 20:16) at as a threat, it's best we discontinue this communication.
You have every right to no longer respond to anything I post. I will post as I feel called to do.
You will certainly be in my prayers.
OK, Mrs. Don-o,
First, I continue to appreciate you.
In regards to your posted items. I am not telling YOU what YOU believe. In fact, you selected items that I didn’t even post to you. No wonder I didn’t know what you referred to in your earlier post.
I am discussing the Catholic Church teachings. You may not like my statements. No problem. There are some of yours I don’t like either. That is what discussions are about.
If I ever say “you believe...”, and it turns out you don’t, go ahead and gripe at me. You have reason.
In this case, the things you’re describing are my explanation of why Catholicism has such error, to a completely different person. I not only do not apologize for that, I think you are misrepresenting my intent - which is at best assuming what I believe - since you cannot read my mind.
I have no idea what is in an individual Catholic FReeper’s brain. I don’t pretend to. Under the Religion Forum guidelines, found at the RM’s page, it says in these discussions we are free to characterize what a group believes. I am doing so.
“That is the whole offense in a nutshell: ascribing beliefs to me and to other Catholics, based not on the actual teachings of the Catholic Church, but upon your own unfortunate misunderstandings; and then, what’s really unjustifiable, failing to correct this once it’s pointed out to you.”
Not you. Not any individual catholic named. Catholicism in general and the group of members known as Catholics. You can point out things. That is a discussion. I am not required to believe your opinion about what you point out.
Then there is this...
“You even repeat the falsehoods, even after being informed that that’s not what we believe. That’s rude, and aggravating.”
I will continue to do so, knowing from my perspective they are not falsehoods. That someone would “inform” me that in there view Catholics believe something different, is interesting and could be discussed, but it doesn’t change the underlying reality.
You may be aggravated seeing Catholic beliefs characterized this way. Great. Perhaps you will see them in a new light, apart from the echo-chamber of rome.
In summary:
Mary IS a demigoddess to Catholics and is treated that way.
They DO idolize Mary, bowing before her. Please read the definition of “idolize.”
Works as a basis of salvation DO put people - good and sincere people - on a hamster wheel of works. Catholics as a group LIVE on the Celestial Hamster Wheel of Works and Guilt.
Religion DOES separate people from the Gospel of Grace and the secure relationship of a son with eternal life.
The accretions of millennia in Catholicism are the accretions of syncratic pagan practices and beliefs. Heck, many of Catholic popes were not believers in Christ.
You go on to write...
“That same thing seems to be happening here with Mary: you don’t understand the image, so you proclaim your own wrong-headed notion, and identify that to be what I believe.”
No. How would you know what I understand, unless you are telling me what I believe?? I see what Catholics do, teach, believe and respond from my knowledge of Christ and the Scriptures. Again, not what YOU believe. I refer to the group.
“Did you ask me first?”
I was not writing to you Mrs. Don-O.
“Did you ask any Catholic whether this was a true account of their beliefs?”
I grew up Catholic and have studied the teachings of Catholicism. Alter boy. Confirmed. I readily admit they do not see what they are doing and would tell you something different. So did I before Christ opened my eyes.
“As I said, I don’t mind at all if you tell me what your beliefs are. I do mind when you tell me what MY beliefs are, especially when you’ve got it wrong. “
And we are back to the main point - I’m not telling you what YOU believe. All I know about what you believe is what you post and defend. Even that, I only assume you believe what you post and defend.
We are not here to discuss what you believe. We are hear discussing Catholicism and what it does and in this instance, how what it teaches and does is not a Christian belief.
None of that is meant as a personal insult to any individual. I can not keep them from taking things personally, even when they are not intended in any personal way. IF this is an issue for any person, the RM suggests they stick to Caucus Threads.
You seem to have a bee up your back this past couple days in your posts. I hope you are well. I wish you well.
Kindest Regards
AMPU
cc: Religion Moderator pinged because I mentioned his/her name
Bernadine: …all gifts, all virtues, and all graces are dispensed by the hands of Mary to whomsoever, when, and as she pleases. O Lady, since thou art the dispenser of all graces, and since the grace of salvation can ONLY come through thy hands, OUR SALVATION DEPENDS ON THEE.Bonaventure: …the gates of heaven will open to all who confide in the protection of Mary. Blessed are they who know thee, O Mother of God, for the knowledge of THEE is the high road to everlasting life, and the publication of thy virtues is the way of ETERNAL SALVATION . Give ear, O ye nations; and all you who desire heaven , serve, honor Mary, and certainly you will find ETERNAL LIFE.
Ephem: …devotion to the divine Mother…is the unlocking of the heavenly Jerusalem.
Blosius: To the, O Lady, are committed the KEYS and the treasures of the kingdom of Heaven.
Ambrose: …constantly pray ‘Open to us, O Mary, the gates of paradise, since thou hast its KEYS.
Fulgetius: …by Mary God descended from Heaven into the world, that by HER man might ascend from earth to Heaven.
Athanasius: …And, thou, O Lady, wast filled with grace, that thou mightiest be the way of our SALVATION and the means of ascent to the heavenly Kingdom.
Richard of Laurence: Mary, in fine, is the mistress of heaven; for there she commands as she wills, and ADMITS whom she wills.
Guerric: …he who serves Mary and for whom she intercedes, is as CERTAIN of heaven as if he were already there…and those who DO NOT serve Mary will NOT BE SAVED.
Anselm: It suffices, O Lady, that thou willest it, and our SALVATION is certain.
Antoninus: …souls protected by Mary, and on which she casts her eyes, are NECESSARILY JUSTIFIED AND SAVED.
I did not forget a sarcasm tag this time. The above are heresies which elevate the Mother of Jesus, a devout Woman of Precious qualities to a position she, being a devout woman, would not desire. In so doing, the religion of Catholicism has speciously made her a goddess in a fashion only found in pagan cults.
Even well known early church fathers (Catholic) do NOT teach this!
As regards the oft-quoted Mt. 16:18, note the bishops promise in the profession of faith of Vatican 1,
Likewise I accept Sacred Scripture according to that sense which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers. — http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/firstvc.htm
Yet as the Dominican cardinal and Catholic theologian Yves Congar O.P. states,
Unanimous patristic consent as a reliable locus theologicus is classical in Catholic theology; it has often been declared such by the magisterium and its value in scriptural interpretation has been especially stressed. Application of the principle is difficult, at least at a certain level. In regard to individual texts of Scripture total patristic consensus is rare...One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:16-18. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out an exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical. — Yves M.-J. Congar, O.P., p. 71
And Catholic archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick (1806-1896), while yet seeking to support Peter as the rock, stated that,
“If we are bound to follow the majority of the fathers in this thing, then we are bound to hold for certain that by the rock should be understood the faith professed by Peter, not Peter professing the faith.” — Speech of archbishop Kenkick, p. 109; An inside view of the vatican council, edited by Leonard Woolsey Bacon.
Your own CCC allows the interpretation that, “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424), for some of the ancients (for what their opinion is worth) provided for this or other interpretations.
• Ambrosiaster [who elsewhere upholds Peter as being the chief apostle to whom the Lord had entrusted the care of the Church, but not superior to Paul as an apostle except in time], Eph. 2:20:
Wherefore the Lord says to Peter: 'Upon this rock I shall build my Church,' that is, upon this confession of the catholic faith I shall establish the faithful in life. — Ambrosiaster, Commentaries on Galatians—Philemon, Eph. 2:20; Gerald L. Bray, p. 42
• Augustine, sermon:
"Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. — John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine , © 1993 New City Press, Sermons, Vol III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327
Upon this rock, said the Lord, I will build my Church. Upon this confession, upon this that you said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,' I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer her (Mt. 16:18). — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 236A.3, p. 48.
• Augustine, sermon:
For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, 'On this rock will I build my Church,' because Peter had said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church. — Augustine Tractate CXXIV; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: First Series, Volume VII Tractate CXXIV (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.cxxv.html)
• Augustine, sermon:
And Peter, one speaking for the rest of them, one for all, said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Mt 16:15-16)...And I tell you: you are Peter; because I am the rock, you are Rocky, Peter-I mean, rock doesn't come from Rocky, but Rocky from rock, just as Christ doesn't come from Christian, but Christian from Christ; and upon this rock I will build my Church (Mt 16:17-18); not upon Peter, or Rocky, which is what you are, but upon the rock which you have confessed. I will build my Church though; I will build you, because in this answer of yours you represent the Church. — John Rotelle, O.S.A. Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 270.2, p. 289
• Augustine, sermon:
Peter had already said to him, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' He had already heard, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not conquer her' (Mt 16:16-18)...Christ himself was the rock, while Peter, Rocky, was only named from the rock. That's why the rock rose again, to make Peter solid and strong; because Peter would have perished, if the rock hadn't lived. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 244.1, p. 95
• Augustine, sermon:
...because on this rock, he said, I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not overcome it (Mt. 16:18). Now the rock was Christ (1 Cor. 10:4). Was it Paul that was crucified for you? Hold on to these texts, love these texts, repeat them in a fraternal and peaceful manner. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1995), Sermons, Volume III/10, Sermon 358.5, p. 193
• Augustine, Psalm LXI:
Let us call to mind the Gospel: 'Upon this Rock I will build My Church.' Therefore She crieth from the ends of the earth, whom He hath willed to build upon a Rock. But in order that the Church might be builded upon the Rock, who was made the Rock? Hear Paul saying: 'But the Rock was Christ.' On Him therefore builded we have been. — Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VIII, Saint Augustin, Exposition on the Book of Psalms, Psalm LXI.3, p. 249. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.LXI.html)
• Augustine, in “Retractions,”
In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable. — The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1:.
• Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25:
'You are Christ, Son of the living God.'...Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' To whom be glory and power forever. — Oratio XXV.4, M.P.G., Vol. 85, Col. 296-297.
• Bede, Matthaei Evangelium Expositio, 3:
You are Peter and on this rock from which you have taken your name, that is, on myself, I will build my Church, upon that perfection of faith which you confessed I will build my Church by whose society of confession should anyone deviate although in himself he seems to do great things he does not belong to the building of my Church...Metaphorically it is said to him on this rock, that is, the Saviour which you confessed, the Church is to be built, who granted participation to the faithful confessor of his name. — 80Homily 23, M.P.L., Vol. 94, Col. 260. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen, Footnote #204, p. 156 [unable to verify by me].
• Cassiodorus, Psalm 45.5:
'It will not be moved' is said about the Church to which alone that promise has been given: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' For the Church cannot be moved because it is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely, Christ the Lord. — Expositions in the Psalms, Volume 1; Volume 51, Psalm 45.5, p. 455
• Chrysostom (John) [who affirmed Peter was a rock, but here not the rock in Mt. 16:18]:
Therefore He added this, 'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. — Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily LIIl; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LII.html)
• Cyril of Alexandria:
When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple.”. — Cyril Commentary on Isaiah 4.2.
• Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII):
“For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, 1 Corinthians 10:4 and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.'
“For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters.” — Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII), sect. 10,11 ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101612.htm)
• Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II): Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter's mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God. On it we can base an answer to every objection with which perverted ingenuity or embittered treachery may assail the truth."-- (Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II), para 23; Philip Schaff, editor, The Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers Series 2, Vol 9.
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.