Posted on 02/24/2010 11:17:16 AM PST by Pyro7480
You may chose to use these sacramentals or not. No one declares that you must.
[...] Why should it be a desire, let alone requirement, to strip from Christian worship anything that is not "necessary"? I agree that anything heretical should be shunned, but like with any celebration authentic Christian worship is rich, and should include veneration of Christ's saints, art, pageantry, -- anythign your heart asks it should receive.
You misunderstand me. I was not speaking to the doing of the mass, but rather, the technical aspects of the mass itself.
As to pageantry and the like, I find it rather uninformed to suggest that Protestants are generally against it as such - There is a vast array of worshiping styles and experiences within the Protestant scope, to include everything from liturgies and formal processions, all the way to rock bands, multimedia events, and preachers dressed like Elvis. "Different strokes," as it were.
Now, Mass is mandated by Christ in Luke 22:19 ("do this"). It is further clarified as "showing the death" (and therefore sacrifice) of Christ (1 Cor 11:26). The Church is, of course encouraging penance at all times and the Penitential Rite is an organic part of the Mass, but it is the redemptive sacrifice of Christ that is celebrated at Mass (1 Cor 5:7-8, John 6:52).
If anything is necessary the Mass is necessary.
It never ceases to amaze me, what odd concoctions people will make out of whole cloth, considered justified by a few cherry-picked verses from the Bible...
"The best cure for Christianity is reading the Bible." -Mark Twain.
Have you not considered Christ's words and actions at the Last Supper within the context of the Passover feast?
Thank you, I did. (Same to you, btw)
Incidentally, Catholic Church advises against “servile” work on the Lord’s Day, but things like scripture study and evangelization are encouraged even more. This, too, is a necessary component of the Holy Mass.
It is simply a matter of me being in the right mindset. I tend to be rather passionate in contending of any sort, which can often cause me to lose the focus on worship... For that reason, it is of late a preference of mine to avoid argument upon the Sabbath Day.
THOSE silly, slipping,s liding, denying, obfuscating assertions are UNMITIGATEDLY WRONG AGAIN.
The wording in Ferraro is quite unequivocal and vain-gloriously ascribes quite plainly to Mary various personal powers and offices very much in contradiction to Scripture.
Such authors and the institution which supports them shall experience God’s disciplines accordingly.
Judgment belongs to God alone, Quix.
And it seems that He judges Mary a worthwhile recipient of many honors and graces that He has not afforded any other human.
I again reiterate. No where is it said that Mary is divine or is anything that has not come to her by anything other than the virtues and powers of her Divine Son, Her Heavenly Father and Her Spouse, the Holy Spirit.
I have spent enough time with this endless loop of yours, clever wording and colorful italics and all. I think my time is better spent in prayer, maybe yours would be too.
Those -- so-called rubrics -- are of course at the discretion of the Church and often of the local bishop, under the general mandate to "bind and loose". There are considerable disagreements among the Catholics and between the Catholics and Orthodox regarding the proper liturgy. Some variabilty in this is a good thing. But your earlier comment was about the Mass being unnecessary. It is necessary, as it is one of the few things directly mandated by Christ that the Church should do.
considered justified by a few cherry-picked verses from the Bible
Please. There is nothing taken out of context in the verses I cited, and I could have brought in more. In its essence, the sacrifical nature of the Mass, the Real Presence of Christ in it, and its recurring nature are well represented in the scripture.
pageantry
Pageantry, you do. What you don't do is venerate Christ's saints and the holy images. This impoverishes your spiritual life.
Have you not considered Christ's words and actions at the Last Supper within the context of the Passover feast?
Of course. The Mass is the Passover feast. "Christ our pasch is sacrificed. Therefore let us feast", 1 Cor 5. Here's that connection again:
Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof? 3 And no man was able, neither in heaven, nor on earth, nor under the earth, to open the book, nor to look on it. 4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open the book, nor to see it. 5 And one of the ancients said to me: Weep not; behold the lion of the tribe of Juda, the root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.6 And I saw: and behold in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the ancients, a Lamb standing as it were slain, having seven horns and seven eyes: which are the seven Spirits of God, sent forth into all the earth. 7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat on the throne. 8 And when he had opened the book, the four living creatures, and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints: 9 And they sung a new canticle, saying: Thou art worthy, O Lord, to take the book, and to open the seals thereof; because thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God, in thy blood, out of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation. 10 And hast made us to our God a kingdom and priests, and we shall reign on the earth.
11 And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne, and the living creatures, and the ancients; and the number of them was thousands of thousands, 12 Saying with a loud voice: The Lamb that was slain is worthy to receive power, and divinity, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and benediction. 13 And every creature, which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them: I heard all saying: To him that sitteth on the throne, and to the Lamb, benediction, and honour, and glory, and power, for ever and ever. 14 And the four living creatures said: Amen. And the four and twenty ancients fell down on their faces, and adored him that liveth for ever and ever.
(Apoc. 5).
Read some Scott Hahn. The entire "Supper of the Lamb" is and excellent read, btu you can start here: The Institution of the Eucharist in Scripture
Also see the relationship between the Old Testament priesthood and the Catholic priesthood explained here: THE PRIESTHOOD DEBATE.
Tell me what you think.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
I speak Scripture. You speak Roman dogma.
It would appear to me that ne’er the twain shall meet.
All very interesting ... although you might want to check a dictionary for your use of the term “inherently.”
All very interesting, as I said. And of what eternal value was the ark after it had fulfilled its purpose? And the ark was a type of Mary, you say? Do you really want to pursue this analogy? It is literally going nowhere.
“It is not a reach to believe that ...” So this is the object of faith? That which is “not a reach”? This is not what faith, God-given, heaven-sent faith is about. Faith does not grasp after that which merely is “not a reach.” It grasps that which God says, clearly, plainly, that which God promises. Not that which might or might not be, that which is “not a reach.”
You say, “Nothing has been added to Scripture and nothing has been taken from it.” And I would add, nothing of Scripture has been taken seriously. Your position seems to be, ‘whatever we can assert that does not blatantly contradict Scripture is to be believed.’ I don’t think so.
You don’t speak any scripture.
annalex said:
“You don’t speak any scripture.”
I congratulate you on the brevity of your answer. It is even shorter than mine. Mine, however, had the virtue of being true, as reference backwards to previous posts will confirm.
That is correct,dear Jvette-our protestant brethren due to modernism don't seem to read the scripture fulfilled in light of the New Testament through typology like the early Christians did.
Here is a following example of Mary Typology as Ark of New Covenant backed up with historical writings through early Christians
A cloud of glory covered the Tabernacle and Ark (Exodus 40:34-35; Numbers 9:15) = Type(typology) is “And the angel said to her: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you’” (Luke 1:35)
Ark spent three months in the house of Obededom the Gittite (2 Samuel 6:11) = Type(typology) is Mary spent three months in the house of Zechariah and Elizabeth (Luke 1:26, 40)
King David asked “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” (2 Samuel 6:9) = Type(typology) is Elizabeth asked Mary, “Why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43)
David Leaped and danced before the Lord when the Ark arrived in Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6:14 - 16) = Type(typology) is John the Baptist leaped for joy in Elizabeth’s womb when Mary arrived (Luke 1:44)
Even the Early Christians saw this. Some examples....
Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373) was the main defender of the deity of Christ against the second-century heretics. He wrote... “O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O [Ark of the] Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides” (Homily of the Papyrus of Turin).
Gregory the Wonder Worker (c. 213–c. 270) wrote: “Let us chant the melody that has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, ‘Arise, O Lord, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy sanctuary.’ For the Holy Virgin is in truth an ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary” (Homily on the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary).
Remember,Saint Athanasius was an instrumental decision maker of NT canon as well,so what he writes carries a tremendous amount of truth
Hebrews 11:1-3 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Indeed, by faith our ancestors received approval. by faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible.
In Mary we see all the fruits of the faith of these men alive in one woman. Jesus is the promise all those men never received though they had faith and were found righteous by God. Mary is the first to actually receive those promises. The grace of Jesus which frees us from sin and opens the doors of heaven for us to reside in for eternity.
Note that Enoch is believed to have been taken by God and to have not suffered death. And why is this believed? Because Enoch was not found and it was attested before he was taken that he had pleased God.
Catholics know that there is no burial place for Mary. She, like Enoch cannot be found; powerful in the face of the fact that Catholics know in intimate detail where and how most of the original disciples died and are buried.
So, when I say "it's not a reach" I mean that in light of the OT, the doctrines regarding Mary are not only possible but probable. This is our faith, in things that are not seen. That we, like Mary will one day be perfect, that by following Jesus we will one day sit at His right hand.
You ask what is the eternal value of the Ark? Do you honestly mean to imply that after the birth of Jesus, Mary had no more value to Him or to us? The Ark of the Covenant, though commissioned by God, was a man made construct which was no longer needed after the New Covenant. Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, is a daughter of God, His creature, made to His specification so that she was able to bear the Incarnate Word. Do you believe that she is of no more value than just so much wood and ornamentation that once used is thrown on the dust heap? Is that how you think God loves His children? Is that how you imagine Jesus values His mother?
“To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant”
John Cardinal Newman
A man who knew that of which he spoke.
A truer statement cannot be found as evidenced by the conversion of hundreds of Protestant ministers, Scott Hahn being the most famous among Catholics as he admits he first set out to disprove Catholicism with Scripture and a study of early Christian beliefs.
Indeed. You posted one reference to scripture which said the opposite of what you thought it meant. That’s about it. I, on the other hand, argumented everything the Church teaches from scripture and not from “Roman dogma”. Read the scripture attentively and with love, and you will become Catholic. It is never too late.
Did I say that there was no typological connection between Mary and the ark? No, that was a conclusion you jumped to. I said:
“All very interesting, as I said. And of what eternal value was the ark after it had fulfilled its purpose? And the ark was a type of Mary, you say? Do you really want to pursue this analogy? It is literally going nowhere.”
Of course there are connections to Mary, and all of it revolves around Christ, all speaks of Him, all glorifies Him ... but you are so obsessed with Mary and defending her veneration that you do not even realize how you sound and how you think and how willing you are to jump on people who even seem to say something a little different than the tune you have learned. You make the blanket statement about protestants not understanding typology “like the early Christians did,” as if protestants were ignorant of the church fathers or paid them no attention. Who fed you that idea, that propaganda?
I have quoted, for example, Athanasius, several times in regard to the sole teaching authority of Scripture and justification by grace through faith (alone!). But when I do that, suddenly your statement: “Remember,Saint Athanasius was an instrumental decision maker of NT canon as well,so what he writes carries a tremendous amount of truth” is not true. Athanasius is to be dismissed on those points. INTERESTING!
So, why did I say: “And of what eternal value was the ark after it had fulfilled its purpose? And the ark was a type of Mary, you say? Do you really want to pursue this analogy? It is literally going nowhere”?
Jeremiah 3:16: “In those days, when your numbers have increased greatly in the land,” declares the LORD, men will no longer say, ‘The ark of the covenant of the LORD.’ It will never enter their minds to be remembered; it will not be missed, nor will another one be made.”
Do you see why I was asking what I was asking?
Nor was I saying that Mary was discarded as if merely a thing. But like the ark, which did indeed foreshadow her, she was simply the bearer of the Lord, she was the Theotokos (yes, I know Athanasius!!!!!), but she is not and was not the THEA. She was not and is not the Queen of heaven. She does not share in any way in the divine nature differently than do all believers. She is in no way part of the hypostatic union, not in any measure. She was in no way sinless. All such is directly contrary to the Holy Scriptures. All are an adding to them. I expect to see her in heaven, as she, like we all will, bends her knee to Him who alone is Lord and King. We all will be His queen, His bride, His beloved, His church. That is the way the Holy Scriptures speak and you cannot show otherwise, not from Scripture.
Yada, yada, yada.
The point of my last missive to you was that I have “argumented” with you all I care to. It is pointless.
Judging by the ignorance displayed in your 276, it is indeed strange that you find it wortwhile to type so much.
Even more importantly, the Greek doesn’t say “you’all’s” mother, rather the object of the mother is directed to one person, the disciple. Nice thing about the Greek is that it so explicitly declares the nature of the object and subject.
| John | ||
| English: Douay-Rheims | Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text (2000) | |
| John 19 |
||
| 26. | When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. | ιησους ουν ιδων την μητερα και τον μαθητην παρεστωτα ον ηγαπα λεγει τη μητρι αυτου γυναι ιδου ο υιος σου |
| 27. | After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own. | ειτα λεγει τω μαθητη ιδου η μητηρ σου και απ εκεινης της ωρας ελαβεν ο μαθητης αυτην εις τα ιδια |
It is unfortunate how often Protestant translations obfuscate that passage.
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.