Posted on 06/16/2003 8:41:08 PM PDT by Salvation
| MARY’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE TRINITY |
| Pope John Paul II |
Our Lady, who was granted the dignity of being the Mother of God, is also the favoured daughter of the Father and the temple of the Holy Spirit Mary "is endowed with the high office and dignity of the Mother of the Son of God, and therefore she is also the beloved daughter of the Father and the temple of the Holy Spirit" (Lumen gentium, n. 53). With this quote from the Second Vatican Council, the Holy Father expressed in concise form the Trinitarian dimension of Marian doctrine, which was the subject of his catechesis at the General Audience of Wednesday, 10 January. Here is a translation of his address, which was the 11th in the series on the Blessed Virgin and was given in Italian. 1. The eighth chapter of the Constitution Lumen gentium shows in the mystery of Christ the absolutely necessary reference to Marian doctrine. In this regard, the first words of the Introduction are significant: "Wishing in his supreme goodness and wisdom to effect the redemption of the world, 'when the fullness of time came, God sent his Son, born of a woman ... that we might receive the adoption of sons' (Gal 4:4-5)" (Lumen gentium, n. 52). This son is the Messiah awaited by the people of the Old Covenant, sent by the Father at a decisive moment of history, the "fullness of time" (Gal 4:4), which coincides with his birth in our world from a woman. She who brought the eternal Son of God to humanity can never be separated from him who is found at the centre of the divine plan carried out in history. The primacy of Christ is shown forth in the Church, his Mystical Body: in her "the faithful are joined to Christ the Head and are in communion with all his saints" (cf. Lumen gentium, n. 52). It is Christ who draws all men to himself. Since in her maternal role she is closely united with her Son, Mary helps direct the gaze and heart of believers towards him. She is the way that leads to Christ: indeed, she who "at the message of the angel received the Word of God in her heart and in her body" (Lumen gentium, n. 53) shows us how to receive into our lives the Son come down from heaven, teaching us to make Jesus the centre and the supreme "law" of our existence. A unique bond between Mary and the Holy Spirit 2. Mary also helps us discover, at the origin of the whole work of salvation, the sovereign action of the Father who calls men to become sons in the one Son. Recalling the very beautiful expressions of the Letter to the Ephesians: "God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ" (Eph 2:4), the Council gives God the title "most merciful": the Son "born of a woman" is thus seen as the fruit of the Father's mercy and enables us to understand better how this Woman is the "mother of mercy". In the same context, the Council also calls God "most wise", suggesting a particular attention to the close link between Mary and the divine wisdom, which in its mysterious plan willed the Virgin's motherhood. 3. The Council's text also reminds us of the unique bond uniting Mary with the Holy Spirit, using the words of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed which we recite in the Eucharistic liturgy: "For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man". In expressing the unchanging faith of the Church, the Council reminds us that the marvellous incarnation of the Son took place in the Virgin Mary's womb without man's co-operation, by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Introduction to the eighth chapter of Lumen gentium thus shows in a Trinitarian perspective an essential dimension of Marian doctrine. Everything in fact comes from the will of the Father, who has sent his Son into the world, revealing him to men and establishing him as the Head of the Church and the centre of history. This is a plan that was fulfilled by the Incarnation, the work of the Holy Spirit, but with the essential co-operation of a woman, the Virgin Mary, who thus became an integral part in the economy of communicating the Trinity to mankind. 4. Mary's threefold relationship with the divine Persons is confirmed in precise words and with a description of the characteristic relationship which links the Mother of the Lord to the Church: "She is endowed with the high office and dignity of the Mother of the Son of God, and therefore she is also the beloved daughter of the Father and the temple of the Holy Spirit" (Lumen gentium, n. 53). Mary's fundamental dignity is that of being "Mother of the Son", which is expressed in Christian doctrine and devotion with the title "Mother of God". This is a surprising term, which shows the humility of God's only-begotten Son in his Incarnation and, in connection with it, the most high privilege granted a creature who was called to give him birth in the flesh. Mother of the Son, Mary is the "beloved daughter of the Father" in a unique way. She has been granted an utterly special likeness between her motherhood and the divine fatherhood. And again: every Christian is a "temple of the Holy Spirit", according to the Apostle Paul's expression (1 Cor 6:19). But this assertion takes on an extraordinary meaning in Mary: in her the relationship with the Holy Spirit is enriched with a spousal dimension. I recalled this in the Encyclical Redemptoris Mater: "The Holy Spirit had already come down upon her, and she became his faithful spouse at the Annunciation, welcoming the Word of the true God..." (n. 26). Mary's dignity surpasses that of every creature 5. Mary's privileged relationship with the Trinity therefore confers on her a dignity which far surpasses that of every other creature. The Council recalls this explicitly: because of this "gift of sublime grace" Mary "far surpasses all creatures" (Lumen gentium, n. 53). However, this most high dignity does not hinder Mary's solidarity with each of us. The Constitution Lumen gentium goes on to say: "But, being of the race of Adam, she is at the same time also united to all those who are to be saved" and she has been "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son" (ibid.). Here we see the authentic meaning of Mary's privileges and of her extraordinary relationship with the Trinity: their purpose is to enable her to co-operate in the salvation of the human race. The immeasurable greatness of the Lord's Mother therefore remains a gift of God's love for all men. By proclaiming her "blessed" (Lk 1:48), generations praise the "great things" (Lk 1:49) the Almighty has done in her for humanity, "in remembrance of his mercy" (Lk 1:54). |
| Taken from: L'Osservatore Romano Weekly Edition in English 17 January 1996, page 11 L'Osservatore Romano is the newspaper of the Holy See. The Cathedral Foundation
Provided Courtesy of: |
Nope.
I have not heard of this before, that the apostles were sinless after Pentecost. Do you have some documentation? I am curious.
This is more of the universal ordinary teaching of the Church which has been allowed to fall by the wayside in the modern trend to error and ignorance by our Pastors. In the Catholic Encyclopedia, we read:
A first prerogative, not clearly inferred from the texts of the New Testament nor demonstrated by solid reasons, is their confirmation in grace. Most modern theologians admit that the Apostles received so abundant an infusion of grace that they could avoid every mortal fault and every fully deliberate venial sin.
I'm certain this is not good enough for Protestants, but it is certainly good enough for me.
To: drstevej
Why is it that you would not accord great honor to Mary, chosen by God to bear His son?
59 posted on 10/07/2002 11:45 PM CDT by sandyeggo
To: sandyeggo
I will gladly accord her EVERY honor accorded her in the Bible.
61 posted on 10/07/2002 11:46 PM CDT by drstevej
To: Siobhan; sandyeggo
... Both Mary and Stephen were exemplary recipients of God's grace. Both honored the Lord in obedience to the Divine call upon their life. Mary gave birth to and nurtured our Lord. Stephen gave his life as the first martyr.
74 posted on 10/08/2002 12:17 AM CDT by drstevej
To: sandyeggo
***She was chosen out of all creation to be the Mother of Jesus. If you just think on the magnitude of that for a moment...the mother of the Savior... a mere human - nurturer of the Divine.***
It was an awesome privilege accorded to Mary. We do not disagree in this. Where we disagree is the conclusions you draw from this that do not have any Biblical support.
It is not that I dishonor her, it is that you bestow honors on her that I can not find anywhere in the Bible.
106 posted on 10/08/2002 5:24 AM CDT by drstevej
ANOTHER THREAD...To: Brices Crossroads; RnMomof7
***Steve, Gabriel's statement to Mary is very plain to me. She is full of grace. Elizabeth's statement under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is also plain to me: She is the "Mother of My Lord(God)". Mary is the sinless Mother of God. Jesus loves her. I love her. How do you feel about her?***
.....
Do I love Mary? Yes and I love Paul and I love Moses And I love David. Jesus loved each of these too. I honor each for the unique role God assigned to them and the honor which He bestows on them I want to mirror.
I once addressed a professor with the title Doctor and was told please call me professor since I do not have a doctorate. Afterwards, I called him professor. Had I persisted in calling him Doctor would that be an act of love? Would that have pleased him? Would that honor him?
I do not pray to Mary or through Mary or ask her intercession because I am accorded the privilege of having Jesus Christ as my advocate with the Father and because I am not instructed in Scripture to have saints in Heaven plead my case.
190 posted on 07/04/2002 3:39 PM CDT by drstevej
"That one must not accept the blessings of heretics, which are rather misfortunes than blessings." Canon 32 of the Council of Laodicea (confirmed universally by the Third Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, Canon II)
Watch it.
Could doesn't mean the same as did. You are using a hypothetical statement as evidence of fact. YOPIOT ???
You say he doesn't, I say he does. I say that saints has several meanings, and the Church has chosen to narrow its common useage to that of persons canonized, and this has support from the Bible in Matthew and Revelation. You can say whatever you wish, and no one will listen, because you have no authority but yourself to appeal to. Whoopdedoo! Saints means the faithful of the Church in the Letters of Paul and the Psalms and elsewhere. I DON'T DISAGREE! But it also means the Blessed in Heaven.
You insist on reading your theology into the statement.
I insist that this is the only way to read the Bible. Attempting the contrary creates utter chaos. The Bible was written to confirm a faith already revealed and known through preaching. Reading the Bible to find the faith without an external guide is an impossibility, and the Bible cautions against it in numerous places, including Acts 8.30-31, which you are studiously ignoring, because there is no authority in Protestantism on how to interpret it rightly and make a final decision on the meaning of revealed truth, and Christ certainly did not intend to leave men in such a predicament as to be unsure of the truths He intended to teach us.
You have yet to tell me why I should listen to your opinions on anything in the Bible or about Christianity. You have no authority from Christ to preach to me, and you are not quoting anyone I would recognize as having such authority - a Bishop in the Apostolic Sucession holding the Catholic Faith, and the Theologians and Preachers licensed by the same.
That said, you are just another baptized layman, and one at least in grave error at that, letting loose with your own opinions on the faith the sources of revelation. You will find you are unable to demonstrate that you are otherwise to anyone, because you have no way of showing why your beliefs are any better than the beliefs of any other Protestant of another sect, with whom you have numerous disagreements, so long as the basis of your faith and preaching is your own personal interpretation of scripture.
Why is my interpetation of scripture, following the teachings of the Catholic Church, not just as good, if not better, than yours, following Calvinism? You have no answer for this, but Catholics have a surer truth. Come and share it.
11. Who can reflect without weeping on the fierce and mighty conflicts which have raged in Our times and continue to rage almost daily against the Catholic religion? Listen to St. Jerome: "It is no small spark, no small spark, I say, which is scarcely seen in being observed; it is not a little leaven which is obviously a small thing. It is rather a flame which attempts to devastate almost the entire world and to burn up walls, cities, broad pastures and districts; and a leaven which mixes with the flour and tries to destroy its whole substance."[Note 8: Comm. on Gal 3.8.] With this reason for fear, We would lose all heart for Our apostolic service were it not that the Guardian of Israel does not slumber or sleep, and says to His disciples: "Behold I am with you all days even to the end of the world," and condescends to be shepherd of shepherds as well as guardian of the sheep.[Note 9: St. Leo, serm. 5.]12. But at what are these remarks aimed? A certain sect, which you surely know, has unjustly arrogated to itself the name of philosophy, and has aroused from the ashes the disorderly ranks of practically every error. Under the gentle appearance of piety and liberality this sect professes what they call tolerance or indifferentism. It preaches that not only in civil affairs, which is not Our concern here, but also in religion, God has given every individual a wide freedom to embrace and adopt without danger to his salvation whatever sect or opinion appeals to him on the basis of his private judgment. The apostle Paul warns us against the impiety of these madmen. "I beseech you, brethren, to behold those who create dissensions and scandals beyond the teaching which you have learned. Keep away from such men. They do not serve Christ Our Lord but their own belly, and by sweet speeches and blessings they seduce the hearts of the innocent."[Note 10. Rom 16.]
13. Of course this error is not new, but in Our days it rages with a new rashness against the constancy and integrity of the Catholic faith. Eusebius cites Rhodo as his source for saying that the heretic Apelles in the second century had already produced the mad theory that faith should not be investigated, but that each man should persevere in the faith he was raised in.[Note 11: Hist. eccl., 5.] Even those who put faith in a crucified man were to be saved, according to Apelles, provided that they engaged in good works. Rhetorius too, as We learn from St. Augustine, used to claim that all the heretics walked on the right road and spoke truth. But Augustine adds that this is such nonsense that he cannot believe it.[Note 12: De haeresibus, no. 72.] The current indifferentism has developed to the point of arguing that everyone is on the right road. This includes not only all those sects which though outside the Catholic Church verbally accept revelation as a foundation, but those groups too which spurn the idea of divine revelation and profess a pure deism or even a pure naturalism. The indifferentism of Rhetorius seemed absurd to St. Augustine, and rightly so, but it did acknowledge certain limits. But a tolerance which extends to Deism and Naturalism, which even the ancient heretics rejected, can never be approved by anyone who uses his reason. Nevertheless -- alas for the times; alas for this lying philosophy!-such a tolerance is approved, defended, and praised by these pseudophilosophers.
14. Certainly many remarkable authors, adherents of the true philosophy, have taken pains to attack and crush this strange view. But the matter is so self-evident that it is superfluous to give additional arguments. It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth Itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members. For we have a surer word of the prophet, and in writing to you We speak wisdom among the perfect; not the wisdom of this world but the wisdom of God in a mystery. By it we are taught, and by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and that no other name under heaven is given to men except the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth in which we must be saved. This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church. (Pope Leo XII, Encyclical Ubi Primum, 5 May 1824)
Your blessing is worse, because it is a sinful misfortune both for you in attempting to give something beyond your power, and for sandyeggo if she pretends to receive it.
Pope John Paul II scandalized some by giving a certain amount of reverance towards the Koran. If he sinned, which I don't necessarily grant because I believe his act was partially misunderstood, his sin affected no one but himself. And he certainly did nothing nearly as bad as what Pope St. Marcellinus (the 29th Roman Pontiff), who offered incense as a sacrfice to the gods in a moment of weakness during the persecutions to avoid martyrdom (he was later martyred anyway).
Don't kid yourself.
Why are you on Free Republic then?
To discuss issues of the day with other conservatives, not to wallow in indifferentism.
You expect all non-RCs to leave OR just be mute and listen while you instruct us about the sinlessness of Jeremiah and John the Baptist?
No, I don't expect you to be mute. I expect you to attempt to convince me why I should accept what you say using the philosophical underpinnings of your belief system. I readily grant that you may give me a correct interpretation of something, including things I may not know. For example, you correctly gave us one of the meanings of the word saint - I don't deny it at all. But how am I to know that what you saying is right, such as that this is the only valid Christian/Biblical meaning of saint? The Bible doesn't tell us that. Its simply your opinion. You give me no reasons to want to heed your personal opinions on the Bible or any point of Christianity.
The Ethiopian knew what Deacon Philip (my confirmation saint) was saying was true because he had authority to preach from the Church. Do you? If not, we are back to what is the basis for me, or anyone else, accepting your opinion?
Actually, I disagree with Calvin on quite a few points. You have misrepresented me in this regard.
No, I haven't. I said you are a follower of Calvinism in Theology, not of John Calvin. You've said as much yourself on this thread, claiming to be a four point calvinist. I can't misrepresent you by calling you by a title you yourself used "A dispensational, 4 point calvinist, memorialist credo-baptist". I follow Thomism, myself, since Holy Church has adopted that has her offical and preferred systematic theology, but that doesn't mean I agree with every single thing St. Thomas Aquinas wrote - for example he was wrong on the Immaculate Conception, and also the Matter of Holy Orders. I'm going to encourage you to meditate upon this:
Now, whoever believes, assents to someone's words; so that, in every form of unbelief, the person to whose words assent is given seems to hold the chief place and to be the end as it were; while the things by holding which one assents to that person hold a secondary place. Consequently he that holds the Christian faith aright, assents, by his will, to Christ, in those things which truly belong to His doctrine.Accordingly there are two ways in which a man may deviate from the rectitude of the Christian faith. First, because he is unwilling to assent to Christ: and such a man has an evil will, so to say, in respect of the very end. This belongs to the species of unbelief in pagans and Jews. Secondly, because, though he intends to assent to Christ, yet he fails in his choice of those things wherein he assents to Christ, because he chooses not what Christ really taught, but the suggestions of his own mind.
Therefore heresy is a species of unbelief, belonging to those who profess the Christian faith, but corrupt its dogmas. (Summa II-II, Q 11, Art 1)
Every sin consists formally in aversion from God, as stated above (I-II, 71, 6; I-II, 73, 3). Hence the more a sin severs man from God, the graver it is. Now man is more than ever separated from God by unbelief, because he has not even true knowledge of God: and by false knowledge of God, man does not approach Him, but is severed from Him.
Nor is it possible for one who has a false opinion of God, to know Him in any way at all, because the object of his opinion is not God. Therefore it is clear that the sin of unbelief is greater than any sin that occurs in the perversion of morals. (Summa II-II, Q 10, Art 3)
I say, Protestantism is a construct in the mind of the believer, based on their own opinions of what Divine Revelation should be. Tell me why this is not so? It seems to me a shifting sand, where "Everyman's a Pope" to paraphrase Huey Long. How can this chaos be what Christ intended to bequeath to us as a legacy?
My meaning was, "May God bless you, my friend." So there is nothing for her to receive or reject.
May God bless you too, HtC
While I understand your intention, look at the formula of the Last Blessing at Holy Mass. "May Almighty God bless you, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, + and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."
All blessings are from God, but they are being called down by men who speak the words.
That being said, I accept your phrase as a statement of goodwill in fraternal quibbling, and return the same to you.
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.