Give Your All To . . . ? . . . . [A Rel Forum Research thread--Open]

Bible, Vultus Christi, Quix's noggin ^ | 28 APR 2010; 30 APR 2010 | Jesus, Mark Kirby & Quix

[wagglebee]

Our Lord was very clear when he said, “Upon this Rock I will build My Church.”

Protestants can go off on whatever absurd tangent they want to try to prove that Peter isn’t the Rock, but they CANNOT ESCAPE the reality that “My Church” refers to a SINGLE CHURCH.

[Mad Dawg]

This is how decrepit I am: I have to go look in the index of my apocryphal NT. If it's in there, I read it. I just don't remember it. Is it the one where Jesus makes the clay birds and they come to life, and Joseph cuts a plank too short so Jesus stretches it?

Oh, it's the Joachim and Anna stuff, right?

I bought this book in the early '70's. It cost $7!!!!! YOU can scarcely get a good paperback for that kind of money these days.

But to get back to Irenaeus - in what sense is what he says "authoritative"? That is, to me this is not strictly speaking theology or systematic theology.

I guess I'm still not seeing what the problem is with that passage. It just seems evident and pleasant to me. It think this is important when viewed in the old way:

For in the same way the sin of the first created man (protoplasti) receives amendment by the correction of the First-begotten,

Here's what I think he's saying: We can think of Jesus as the second Adam. The first Adam seals the deal on the Fall. The second Adam seals the deal on our redemption.

So
The first woman took the first human step in the Fall. The Fall was, um, perfected when Adam ate the apple. Up until he wussed out, we had a chance.

So an analogy is that the first human step in our redemption could be said to have been taken by Mary (in all the ways Irenaeus says) but of course it takes the second Adam to perfect it.

I feel unclear in my expression and fuzzy in my alleged mind. Sorry. But I still don't see what there is in this passage to be upset about.

[count-your-change]

I'm sure you well know what the term authoritative means and how it pertains to references to someones writings.

“So an analogy is that the first human step in our redemption could be said to have been taken by Mary (in all the ways Irenaeus says) but of course it takes the second Adam to perfect it.”

No, not quite. But when you no longer “feel unclear in my expression and fuzzy in my alleged mind.” we'll have to talk again.

[Mad Dawg]

I know what "authoritative" means, I guess. What I don't get is what is authorized. It seems that a protracted analogy is authorized. The only thing resembling a theological proposition is that creatures can play a sort of supporting role in their redemption.

“So an analogy is that the first human step in our redemption could be said to have been taken by Mary (in all the ways Irenaeus says) but of course it takes the second Adam to perfect it.”

No, not quite.

Well, in what did I go astray?

[Quix]

WONDERFULLY EXCELLENT.

I don’t know how to encourage folks to reflect more on the original question.

I’m still stunned and at a loss.

Sadly, Dear Sister.

[count-your-change]

I'll not be so bold as to say you've gone astray but if Mary is to be viewed as the ‘patroness of Eve’ and ‘the rescuer of mankind from the bondage to death’ and ‘her obedience balances Eve's disobedience’ I just have ask where in the Scriptures this is found.

So if such ideas are found in Scripture, please inform me!

[Mad Dawg]

I'm sorry you're disappointed. It does seem that any thread on the Catholic - nonCatholic thing ends up pretty much the same.

I do think AG's summary is good (though the link to my humble but brilliant post is broken.)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

No one said Psalms 113 is "contrary to Scripture."

If you think I make these comments without looking up the meaning of what was written you are wrong.

The fact remains you changed your tag yesterday. Likewise it is true you were posting on a thread about (and supporting the idea of) "giving your all to Mary."

And "giving one's all to Mary" is indeed "contrary to Scripture."

[Quix]

I’ve been blessed by both.

Thanks for your ping.

[Quix]

Thanks.

I’ll crawl out of the grief at some point.

Very sad and troubling, to me, still.

[Quix]

Probably . . .

the only reason the following words seem so difficult for some folks to understand . . . in thought, words and actions . . .

A-G:

"To God be the glory, not man, never man."

is the very human

aversion to focusing all glory on God.

There's a problem with that, however.

That's
GOD'S STANDARD
FOR WORSHIP.

I suspect that if folks want a different standard with different rewards accordingly,

they'll have to find a spare VERY DIFFERENT MULTIVERSE lying around somewhere.

I haven't noticed any in my neighborhood.

[1000 silverlings]

You said

He need never lie. He never wants to.

That is a big difference from He cannot lie

[Mad Dawg]

The passage saith:

And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin;

This is where one starts to want the original (instead of this klunky translation).

BUT, as I read this, Mary's "rescue" is presented as, so to speak, proportionate to Eve's getting us in the soup. SO, again as I read it (past tense, I was just sort of reading along ...) Ireneaus was saying that Eve contributes to our condemnation -- starts the process by which we end up in the soup -- and Mary contributes to our redemption.

And that's the say in which Mary's "fiat" balances Eve's disobedience. I'm seeing it like this:

Eve	Adam	Mary	Jesus
'starts' fall by eating 'apple', offering to adam	Completes Fall by accepting 'apple' from Eve	'starts' redemption by accepting vocation and 'bearing the fruit', to wit: Jesus	completes redemption by life, cross, etc.
listens to lucifer	...	Listens to Gabriel	...
takes fruit from tree	...	bears fruit FOR tree (cross)	...

Like that.

As to the "patroness" (advocate) thing, for us we all get to choose for whom we pray, and Mary by (through grace) getting it right seems suited to advocate for Eve. I don't know what theological proposition arises from this.

I know some folks here have said some of Irenaeus is spurious, and I must say this line of thought, tabulation, tidying things up strikes me as kind of late medieval-- that's just an impression.

[betty boop]

My first reply was in answer to the question posed, citing the Great Commandment and other passages, i.e. that loving God with all our hearts, minds and souls is the most important thing we will ever do. It is top priority, surpassingly above all else.

Amen!

Thank you oh so very much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!

[betty boop]

My first reply was in answer to the question posed, citing the Great Commandment and other passages, i.e. that loving God with all our hearts, minds and souls is the most important thing we will ever do. It is top priority, surpassingly above all else.

Amen!

Truly, to God be the glory, not man, never man.

Thank you oh so very much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!

[Mad Dawg]

Yeah. It is.

I would say that to read the relevant verse from Hebrews as making an ethical and metaphysical statement about the nature of Will, the relationship between potency and act in God, etc is to ask too much of it.

Hebrews says, He cannot lie (It IS Hebrews, right? whatever...) I say Lying is not a thing about which "can" or "cannot" can strictly speaking be used. Better to say that someone who lies cannot tell the truth.

It's the whole evil as a privation of good line of thought.

[1000 silverlings]

Not every mother is greater than her son. To call Mary the mother of God is therefore not to say she is greater than God. Duh.

Yet you say, "she dispensed Him". Very bizarre

[Quix]

There are many examples in Scripture

of Angels appearing to mortals—’great mortals of the faith.’

Typically the mortal would fall down at their feet only to be reprimanded along the lines of . . .

NO WAY—GET UP! I’m merely a servant of the Most High as well.

There’s a lesson there.

[metmom]

It is impossible for God to lie.

He cannot do it. He cannot do *whatever He wants*.

That is a false premise and no argument built on it is even worth discussing even if you could construct an allegedly logical argument from it. It’d be a waste of time.

http://scripturetext.com/hebrews/6-18.htm

[1000 silverlings]

Apparently you didn’t take English lit

lol, some Gatsbys are greater than others