Posted on 04/29/2017 8:02:13 AM PDT by NYer
As we pray for the success of Pope Francis’ trip to Egypt this weekend, a perfect prayer to use is the oldest known Marian prayer, which in fact, traces back to the pope’s host country.
The oldest known Marian prayer is found on an ancient Egyptian papyrus dating from around the year 250. Today known in the Church as the Sub tuum praesidium, the prayer is believed to have been part of the Coptic Vespers liturgy during the Christmas season.
The original prayer was written in Greek and according to Roseanne Sullivan, “The prayer is addressed to Our Lady using the Greek word Θεοτόκος, which is an adjectival form of Θεοφόρος (Theotokos, or God-bearer) and is more properly translated as ‘she whose offspring is God.'” This helps to prove that the early Christians were already familiar with the word “Theotokos” well before the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus ratified its usage.
Below can be found the original Greek text from the papyrus, along with an English translation as listed on the New Liturgical Movement website:
| On the papyrus, we can read: .ΠΟ ΕΥCΠΑ ΚΑΤΑΦΕ ΘΕΟΤΟΚΕΤ ΙΚΕCΙΑCΜΗΠΑ ΕΙΔΗCΕΜΠΕΡΙCTAC AΛΛΕΚΚΙΝΔΥΝΟΥ …ΡΥCΑΙΗΜΑC MONH …HEΥΛΟΓ |
And an English translation could be: Under your mercy we take refuge, Mother of God! Our prayers, do not despise in necessities, but from the danger deliver us, only pure, only blessed. |
More commonly the prayer is translated:
Beneath your compassion,
We take refuge, O Mother of God:
do not despise our petitions in time of trouble:
but rescue us from dangers,
only pure, only blessed one.
Several centuries later a Latin prayer was developed and is more widely known in the Roman Catholic Church:
| Latin Text Sub tuum praesidium confugimus, Sancta Dei Genetrix. Nostras deprecationes ne despicias in necessitatibus nostris, sed a periculis cunctis libera nos semper, Virgo gloriosa et benedicta |
English Text We fly to Thy protection, O Holy Mother of God; Do not despise our petitions in our necessities, but deliver us always from all dangers, O Glorious and Blessed Virgin. Amen. |
The prayer is currently part of the Byzantine, Roman and Ambrosian rites in the Catholic Church and is used specifically as a Marian antiphon after the conclusion of Compline outside of Lent (in the older form of the Roman breviary). It is also a common prayer that has stood the test of time and is a favorite of many Christians, and is the root of the popular devotional prayer, the Memorare.
I did not say Paul was talking about a physical shield. But what we do physically affects what we do internally, and a physical reminder can serve as an effective way to reinforce our internal disposition to be faithful to Christ, just as flash cards can help us memorize Scriptures.
I did not take Isaiah out of context. I mentioned that Paul alludes to it, which is noted by most annotated Bibles as well. And I do not think Paul was taking it out of context. He was familiar with some ancient exegetical and hermeneutical principles which are unfamiliar to most Bible readers today, though.
Regarding the apparition that made the promises about the brown scapular, the historical context is that this was spoken to a Carmelite monk who was already familiar with the qualifying disclaimers I mentioned. The wording of the promises is meant to be interpreted in the context of how the Carmelites defined these terms, not how 21st-century readers define them upon casual reading. Moreover, this type of apparatition has to be approved by Church authorities for its message to be authorized for Catholics, and during this approval process, such qualifications are factored in before approval. No informed Catholic theologian thinks that merely wearing the scapular will save you from hellfire, and wearing it with this attitude without regard for one's interior spiritual state and corresponding external actions will not convey any benefits. As St. Louis de Montford--one of the leading Catholic theologians on Marian devotions--wrote, "Presumptuous devotees are sinners who give full rein to their passions or their love of the world, and who, under the fair name of Christian and servant of our Lady, conceal pride, avarice, lust, drunkenness, anger, swearing, slandering, injustice and other vices. They sleep peacefully in their wicked habits, without making any great effort to correct them, believing that their devotion to our Lady gives them this sort of liberty. They convince themselves that God will forgive them, that they will not die without confession, that they will not be lost for all eternity. They take all this for granted because they say the Rosary, fast on Saturdays, are enrolled in the Confraternity of the Holy Rosary or the Scapular, or a sodality of our Lady, wear the medal or the little chain of our Lady. . .Nothing in our Christian religion is so deserving of condemnation as this diabolical presumption."
Priests offering sacrifice at Mass is indicated in the Gospels, 1 Corinthians, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and Revelation; as well as the earliest post-NT descriptions of Christian worship we have, notably Justin Martyr's description from the mid-2nd century; and early Christian architecture, where altars are ubiquitous. For a more detailed discussion, I recommend Thomas J. Nash, Worthy is the Lamb: The Biblical Roots of the Mass and the work of Steve Ray.
Second, how do we know about extinct Mary cults? We do know some ecstatic cults with women priests showed up before Ephesus. Tertullian supposedly went off the rails with them. FWIW he croaked about 200 years before Ephesus.
Third, unless you're rejecting Nicea/Constantinople, God with us is God.
Fourth, what's wrong with glorifying Mary? EXCESSIVE glorification is one thing, glorification is another.
Fifth, Chalcedon gives the title or description in what's almost a throw-away line. The dispute, as presented these days, was about the distinctness of the natures and the unity of the person. If The Divinity is kind of an add-on, then one set of propositions about Christ follows. To say that from the moment of conception there is one hypostasis with two natures, leads to another and IMHO more betterer set of propositions.
Sixth, I came on this thread to dispute the etymology, not the theology.
If you want to carry around Scripture there's no problem with that.
However, the apparition made a specific promise to those who wear the brown scapular.(I forgot there's a green one also plus a medal Catholics can wear).
While reading Deuteronomy is highly recommended, the attempt to justify the promise of the apparition regarding the Scapular with Deuteronomy 6:8 fails.
The apparition made a specific promise based on wearing the scapular.
It is a reach to draw that it's "OK" to do so from Deuteronomy when no promise is made in the passage in question.
This is not the first false promise from the apparition claiming to be Mary. The apparition at Fatima made a number of false promises also.
I did not say Paul was talking about a physical shield. But what we do physically affects what we do internally, and a physical reminder can serve as an effective way to reinforce our internal disposition to be faithful to Christ, just as flash cards can help us memorize Scriptures.
Again, the promise by the apparition is not a "reminder".
“WHOSOEVER DIES IN THIS GARMENT SHALL NOT SUFFER ETERNAL FIRE.”
That's pretty clear. It's not some "little reminder".
I did not take Isaiah out of context. I mentioned that Paul alludes to it, which is noted by most annotated Bibles as well. And I do not think Paul was taking it out of context. He was familiar with some ancient exegetical and hermeneutical principles which are unfamiliar to most Bible readers today, though.
The scapular was called a "shield" centuries before the brown scapular was introduced, with reference to the "shield of faith" Paul mentions in Ephesians, a passage in turn referencing OT passages such as Isaiah 59:16-19.
Your post gives the impression you are attempting to link these together...that is justifying the Scapular with Isaiah and Ephesians.
Regarding the apparition that made the promises about the brown scapular, the historical context is that this was spoken to a Carmelite monk who was already familiar with the qualifying disclaimers I mentioned.
However, the apparition made a specific promise which was clearly understood by the monk.
The wording of the promises is meant to be interpreted in the context of how the Carmelites defined these terms, not how 21st-century readers define them upon casual reading.
Yet the apparition does not offer such a disclaimer.Apparently many Roman Catholics today believe the promise of the apparition.
Moreover, this type of apparition has to be approved by Church authorities for its message to be authorized for Catholics, and during this approval process, such qualifications are factored in before approval. No informed Catholic theologian thinks that merely wearing the scapular will save you from hellfire, and wearing it with this attitude without regard for one's interior spiritual state and corresponding external actions will not convey any benefits.
“One day through the Rosary and the Scapular I will save the World,” the Blessed Virgin Mary told Saint Dominic. Our Lady of Fatima during the Miracle of the Sun on October 13, 1917, held out the Brown Scapular. She wants us all to wear it always and to pray at least five decades of the Most Holy Rosary each day. Every Pope since the year 1280 A.D. has worn the Brown Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel.
http://www.fatima.org/apostolate/pdf/brown_scapular.pdf
This is how fatima.org portrays the Scapular.
Still, you can hardly avoid every venial sin, no matter how hard you try. And if you’re smart, your purgatory can be shortened almost to nothing. All you have to do is get yourself a ticket marked, “Shortcut to Heaven”.http://www.fatima.org/apostolate/pdf/brown_scapular.pdf
Those placing their faith in a piece of cloth have clearly rejected the promise of Christ in John 5:24:
24“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. John 5:24 NASB
“I am the LORD, that is My name;
I will not give My glory to another,
Nor My praise to graven images. (Isaiah 42:8)
For my own sake, even for my own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory to another. (Isaiah 48:11)
This was part of the historical context of the apparition's original statement. The original statement was directed to a Carmelite monk, and what you're quoting is only part of the original full statement by the apparition, which we only have today from second-hand sources (there was one writer who compiled all existing historical accounts in the late 14th century, and we are dependent on his summary of the records--we do not have the original documents today). The wording as transmitted is using language familiar to medieval monks. It is making a promise conditional upon the monk remaining faithful to their vows, which is the meaning of the phrase the site you are quoting has translated as "dies in this garment"--i.e., dies faithful to their vows, as a monk's scapular was symbolic of their vows and taking it off literally or symbolically was equivalent to abandoning their vows. The wording "dies in this garment" indicates the original context where the monk was literally wearing a large scapular, which was how the brown scapular was used in its first several centuries of existence. The smaller version of the scapular more familiar to laity today was not distributed to non-monks until about three centuries after the original apparition. Its use by monks and its later distribution to non-monks would have been conditional upon approval by whatever church authorities had jurisdiction over such things at the time, and they would not have approved anything they interpreted as contradicting Scripture, which would have excluded a simplistic "if you wear this you will be saved no matter what you do spiritually" interpretation of the apparition's statement. An educated and Scripturally well-versed Carmelite such as St. Teresa of Avila or St. John of the Cross would have balked at an interpretation so patently contradictory to official Catholic teaching.
Likewise, there was a 13-year investigation of Fatima before church authorities deemed it credible, a decision that was premised on a finding of consistency between the apparition's statements and orthodox teaching. The promises of Fatima are premised upon fidelity to Christ. The "shortcut to heaven" passage from the essay at fatima.org you quote, which is a summary geared towards laymen rather than a technically-precise theological document, is not commending "faith in a piece of cloth". Being saved from hell and avoiding purgatory are two different things, and faith in Christ is required for either in Catholic teaching. You do not get to heaven by merely wearing a piece of cloth. Wearing the cloth is an expression of faith and commitment to internal spiritual fidelity, and the promises attached to it are conditional upon perseverance in faith.
Thanks. I stayed away from the Internet and the headache went away finally, but came back when i read online again, and overnight. I plan to keep any reading sparse and light, and will look up Sumatriptan. Thanks again.
God is our Father (Matthew 6:9; cf. John 1:12-13); Jesus is the Son of God; Mary is Jesus’ mother; therefore, Mary is our Mother. Also: “For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” (Matthew 12:50)
Because 5:8 says they're the prayers of the saints.
If it's not Scriptural, and it's not, then it doesn't matter how many people and who they were who practiced it. It's still wrong.
Where does Scripture say that?
That's because He's God and no human is. Mary does not have God's ability to do this, being a mere created being herself.
The Apostles didn't have the ability to do miracles on their own, either, but they did them through the power of God. No one claimed Mary does miracles on her own.
Lastly, the argument that it's OK to do something simply because Scripture doesn't tell us we can't is the absolute weakest and lamest justification for making up theology that I have ever seen.
Where does Scripture say that?
Exodus 20:4-6 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
"And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover." (Exodus 25:18)
"In the inner sanctuary he made a pair of cherubim. . ." (1 Kings 6:23)
Taken at face value, these would also be violating the second commandment. But clearly, they are not. We need to read the second commandment in context. The phrase trasnlated "you shall not bow down to them" (לֹֽא־ תִשְׁתַּחְוֶ֥֣ה לָהֶ֖ם֮ וְלֹ֣א) means not to worship them, which is how it's translated in some translations. We also need to interpret kneeling before a statue of Mary in context. Catholics are not worshipping Mary in the sense forbidden by Exodus 20. Catholic prayers said in front of statues of Mary are ultimately directed towards God--in fact, the Our Father precedes the Hail Mary in the rosary.
I'll get to your other posts in a bit, gotta run here--and I apologize for the late response, it's been a long week for catching up on posts.
“God is our Father (Matthew 6:9; cf. John 1:12-13); Jesus is the Son of God; Mary is Jesus’ mother; therefore, Mary is our Mother.”
This doesn’t pass any logic test at all.
"Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death" is the conclusion of the most common Marian prayer, the Hail Mary. And most prayers asking people to pray for us are also asking to pray for things--for example, "Pray also for me, that whenever I open my mouth, words may be given me so that I will fearlelessly make known the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains." (Ephesians 6:19-20)
Don’t you think He’s going to hear and answer Himself?
We do that, too. He will certainly hear. He can answer yes or no (or "not yet"). He might be more inclined to answer "yes" if I have the humility to ask someone else to pray for me, since "where two or three come together in my name, there I am with them" (Matthew 18:20), and we should "pray for each other" because "the prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective" (James 5:16). Why would Scripture have us ask others to pray for us if we have 100% certainty of having our own prayers answered affirmatively?
That means; no more singular papacy. It was a mistake from the get-go anyhow.
Glad that's finally settled.
Amusing but not persuasive. The metaphor "keys" means different things in Matthew 16:19 and in the quote from St. Ambrose that is being taken out of context there (most likely borrowed via St. Alphonsus de Ligouri, Chapter 8). And in any case, "keys" doesn't imply worship in either context, which is the key point--no pun intended. . .
[Reply:]This doesn’t pass any logic test at all.
Feel free to identify which logical fallacies you identified. I can rewrite it as a syllogism or in symbolic logic if you prefer.
Here is where you had the breakdown: Mary is Jesus’ mother; therefore, Mary is our Mother.”
It does not follow that since Mary is Jesus mother, that she is the mother of every Christian.
It does not follow that since Mary is Jesus mother, that she is the mother of every Christian.
It does if God is our Father (Matthew 6:9) and Jesus is God's Son (Matthew 3:17) and we are God's children (John 1:12-13) and Jesus is our brother (Hebrews 2:10-13).
It does not follow.
It is not Biblical and never found in Scripture.
Jesus had a human mother.
We have different human mothers.
**Yes, God has even used the pagans to preserve his word. God used the ‘unclean’ to preserved his ‘testimony’ many times, and still does no doubt.
He used Egypt to preserve Abraham from famine,
the Philistines to preserved Isaac from famine,
Egypt preserved Israel from famine,
the Philistines preserved David from king Saul,
first ravens, then a woman of Sidon, preserved Elijah from famine,
and Egypt preserved the child Jesus from king Herod. He used Egypt to preserve Abraham from famine. . .**
Did God also use pagans to decide which books belong in the Bible?
Do you think Scripture is talking about a human father when it says God is our Father? When Jesus tells John that Mary is his mother (John 19:27), does he mean she is his biological mother?
Neither of those questions makes Mary a Christian’s mother.
You have a mother. It isn’t Mary.
If you are a believer, she is your sister.
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.