Posted on 07/18/2010 6:04:05 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Sadly, the current interpretation of "free speech" that brought us "Piss Christ" extends to dialogue in the RF.
I can remember shared standards of decency that informed public discourse. A website which exists to reclaim the Republic should encourage its participants in that direction. However, that cannot come from the top down; it must come from the bottom up.
I understand the dilemma that Jim faces and cannot really suggest a better way to moderate the discussion than he has chosen. I can encourage all of us to recognize trolling and baiting for exactly what it is. Deal with that as you do when you are standing on the street and a stinky bus comes by and stops right in front of you. Just hold your breath for a few seconds until it moves on. Then breath again and thank God for oxygen.
...the connecting portion the function of which is to join the body to the head and to transmit to the body the influences and volitions of the head- We mean the neck. Yes, says St. Bernardine of Sienna, "she is the neck of Our Head, by which He communicates to His mystical body all spiritual gifts. "-Ad DiemI just see this as yet another place Mary is insinuated into Christ. Being the neck between the body and the head.
It gets much worse. Supposedly, Mary is also the Mediatrix of ALL Grace.
Please explain how the YOPIOS crowd can possibly infer that documents written in Greek and spread throughout the Greco-Roman world were written to Jews alone.
If this is the case WHY are they contained in Christian Bibles?
Where do you come up with the notion that they were written BEFORE there was a Church on earth? I understand that Catholics and Protestants differ as to when exactly the Church was founded, but your premise has the Church being years AFTER the Pentecost.
It is astonishing to me that there are actually people who call themselves Christians who claim that the Gospels are not addressed to Christians.
I was talking about the reasons for attempting and succeeding. Martin Luther started his efforts for one reason, but the only reason for success was the opportunists of the German princes seeing that the opening was there for themselves. The Lutheran revolution spread as the successes increased. The German princes didn't care about God; they cared about power.
Martin Luther came to love luxury and wealth. No monasticism for him. That was his drug, just as Calvin loved power and control and Zwingli got to pursue his mystical boy soldier ways until he was killed, leaving his Reformation faction without a protector, and by the way, leaving them open to the predations of the other two main factions (which came across the Atlantic to the United States and continued in an increased frenzy, leading to the 1st Amendment).
This is the view of the Nestorians, condemned as heretics in the mid 400s. Nestorius was Patriarch of Constantinople and he taught that there were two persons in Christ, the one human, the other divine. Logically he had to deny that Mary is the Mother of God. He said she should be called Christotokos (Christ bearer), but not Theotokos (God bearer). The doctrine of this heresy was addressed at the Council of Ephesus in 431AD. The Church pronounced that Christ is only one person, not two. Therefore, Mary is the mother of that person and if that person is God then Mary is the Theotokos and deserves to be called the Mother of God. It was from the ruling of this council that "Holy Mary, Mother of God" was added to the "Hail Mary."
Just as Jesus Christ's human nature had no father, His divine nature had no mother.
Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. Those without the Church's guidance are doomed to repeat errors millennia old...
Very good point and very accurate.
Quite a reach from monasticism to luxury and wealth. Even by the standards of that day I doubt Luther was wealthy or living in luxury. But a post needs a good whippin' boy. A shepherd is worthy of his pay.
“”the psychologist part of me rose up””
Modern psychology is occult influenced. I decided not to pursue becoming a psychologist for this very reason because of people like Carl Jung and others who are regarded as pioneers of psychology by universities and psychology communities.
I spent many years working on the dangers of the New Age movement and exposing the dangers to Christians .Modern psychology has been a vehicle to lead people back to old evil practices of the NA movement
Here is the best document ever written on this topic-(much of it by Cardinal Ratzinger)
The “god within“ and “theosis”
Excerpt”Swiss psychiatrist Carl Gustav Jung. James defined religion as experience, not dogma, and he taught that human beings can change their mental attitudes in such a way that they are able to become architects of their own destiny. Jung emphasized the transcendent character of consciousness and introduced the idea of the collective unconscious, a kind of store for symbols and memories shared with people from various different ages and cultures. According to Wouter Hanegraaff, both of these men contributed to a “sacralisation of psychology”, something that has become an important element of New Age thought and practice. Jung, indeed, “not only psychologized esotericism but he also sacralized psychology, by filling it with the contents of esoteric speculation. The result was a body of theories which enabled people to talk about God while really meaning their own psyche, and about their own psyche while really meaning the divine. If the psyche is ‘mind’, and God is ‘mind’ as well, then to discuss one must mean to discuss the other”.(33) His response to the accusation that he had “psychologised” Christianity was that “psychology is the modern myth and only in terms of the current myth can we understand the faith”
Excerpt..”Here is a key point of contrast between New Age and Christianity. So much New Age literature is shot through with the conviction that there is no divine being “out there”, or in any real way distinct from the rest of reality. From Jung’s time onwards there has been a stream of people professing belief in “the god within”. Our problem, in a New Age perspective, is our inability to recognise our own divinity, an inability which can be overcome with the help of guidance and the use of a whole variety of techniques for unlocking our hidden (divine) potential. The fundamental idea is that ‘God’ is deep within ourselves. We are gods, and we discover the unlimited power within us by peeling off layers of inauthenticity.(63) The more this potential is recognised, the more it is realised, and in this sense the New Age has its own idea of theosis, becoming divine or, more precisely, recognising and accepting that we are divine. We are said by some to be living in “an age in which our understanding of God has to be interiorised: from the Almighty God out there to God the dynamic, creative power within the very centre of all being: God as Spirit”
Excerpt..”Many New Age writings argue that one can do nothing (directly) to change the world, but everything to change oneself; changing individual consciousness is understood to be the (indirect) way to change the world. The most important instrument for social change is personal example. Worldwide recognition of these personal examples will steadily lead to the transformation of the collective mind and such a transformation will be the major achievement of our time. This is clearly part of the holistic paradigm, and a re-statement of the classical philosophical question of the one and the many. It is also linked to Jung’s espousal of the theory of correspondence and his rejection of causality.”
Excerp..”Psychology is used to explain mind expansion as “mystical” experiences. Yoga, zen, transcendental meditation and tantric exercises lead to an experience of self-fulfilment or enlightenment. Peak-experiences (reliving one’s birth, travelling to the gates of death, biofeedback, dance and even drugs – anything which can provoke an altered state of consciousness) are believed to lead to unity and enlightenment. Since there is only one Mind, some people can be channels for higher beings. Every part of this single universal being has contact with every other part. The classic approach in New Age is transpersonal psychology, whose main concepts are the Universal Mind, the Higher Self, the collective and personal unconscious and the individual ego. The Higher Self is our real identity, a bridge between God as divine Mind and humanity.”
Excerpt..”The point of New Age techniques is to reproduce mystical states at will, as if it were a matter of laboratory material. Rebirth, biofeedback, sensory isolation, holotropic breathing, hypnosis, mantras, fasting, sleep deprivation and transcendental meditation are attempts to control these states and to experience them continuously”.(70) These practices all create an atmosphere of psychic weakness (and vulnerability). When the object of the exercise is that we should re-invent our selves, there is a real question of who “I” am. “God within us” and holistic union with the whole cosmos underline this question. Isolated individual personalities would be pathological in terms of New Age (in particular transpersonal psychology). But “the real danger is the holistic paradigm”
From Psychology and Occult influences
http://www.excommunicate.net/psychology-and-its-occult-influences/
Modern day psychology actually has the occult to thank for its roots. Sigmund Freud, Sándor Ferenczi, and Carl Jung all spent a great deal of time studying the occult and their experiments even involved practice of the occult.
“Freud first became involved with the paranormal in 1905. He published his last paper on the subject in 1932. During the intervening years, both he and some of his colleagues, particularly Carl Jung and Sándor Ferenczi, devoted a great deal of time and energy to the study of the occult.”
Freud played a more of a myth busting role in his interest in the occult. He still remained very open to the possibility that of real paranormal events. Freud was often torn between wanting to believe in something more and realizing it was his own desires and will that made such paranormal events occur. Freud ultimately succumbed to the superstitious belief of numbers believing that his phone number contained the ending age of his mortality. His fear he suggested was not out of aggression but like most out of the hope that there is a hope of immortality.
Before Ferenczi even knew Freud he had already spent much of his time devoted to the study of dreams, occult, and hypnotism. When Ferenczi met Freud, he decided to devote his life to Parapsychology. Their most noted work was to try and perform and prove thought transference or what we know as telepathy. This view of telepathy involved two very emotionally connected individuals. The telepathy or shared thought occurred only during times of great negative emotional impact. This is different than our modern definition of telepathy which involves cogniscent communication via thoughts.
What many people don’t know is that Carl Jung was actually a very adept practicing gnostic or occultist. Many of his beliefs and views have infiltrated modern psychology. Carl Jung had experienced many bizarre phenomena in his home. Such as doors opening and closing, mysterious voices talking to him etc. The phenomena fit the description of a haunting seemingly perfect. These bizarre occurrences continued until Jung finally sat down in 1916 and wrote The Seven Sermons to the Dead . The book was written under the pen name of Basilides of Alexandria. The book speaks of the creation and of a being named ABRAXAS. When Jung finally completed the Seven Sermons, the bizarre occurrences finally ceased.
The knowledge and study of the subconscious shares very closely with the 72 goetic demons which many occultists now say represent the 72 parts of the lower self. Given the lengthy time all three of these parapsychologists spent vested in the occult and dream psychology, it would be foolish to think that the occult did not influence modern day psychology.
A bit of humor from the late Blessed Fulton Sheen...
“Most people who go to a psychiatrist think they’re crazy. When they come out, they think the psychiatrist’s crazy.”-Fulton J Sheen
I go from a four lane divided highway to a four lane divided limited access highway with a bridge across the Mississippi, then to the various exits after that. I won't say that I close my eyes, but since traffic is normally very mild and I haven't had a deer experience since we moved here, let's say that my driving is closer to autopilot than my driving instructor when I was taking driving instruction would have permitted...
Martin Luther came to love luxury and wealth. No monasticism for him. That was his drug, just as Calvin loved power and control and Zwingli got to pursue his mystical boy soldier ways until he was killed, leaving his Reformation faction without a protector, and by the way, leaving them open to the predations of the other two main factions (which came across the Atlantic to the United States and continued in an increased frenzy, leading to the 1st Amendment).
Wild and false motivations you ascribe to the reformers, just make you look silly and less likely to be taken seriously.
Mary didn’t need to be sinless to carry Jesus. It’s not like she would have contaminated Him or something.
How could Jesus have fully participated in our humanity if He had a perfect, sinless mother. None of the rest of us did.
There is no Scripture that says that Mary was an ark or type of one. Mary and the ark both spent three months somewhere. Big deal.
I think that when a thread has devolved to the point where anti-Catholics are willing to question whether or not God was even capable of the Immaculate Conception, fully embracing Nestorianism and declare that the Gospels are not addressed to Christians all to advance their hateful agenda, it is clear that any further participation on the thread would be a waste of time.
HaHaHa...That's it in a nutshell...
1Co 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
And we who have the Spirit of God within us and have access to that Spirit are heretics according to your religion??? But you're right about one thing...We Spirit indwelt Christians have not one iota of use for your church...
And since God says that if you DO NOT have the Spirit of God within you, that you are none of His, you guys are in deep doo-doo...
So much for your faith and reason...
Yes this was/is me. It has been a life long process. It is still on going. The answer of course is Jesus Christ our Lord, the way the truth and the life. There is tremendous joy and peace in the grace of God when these idols fall.
I am blessed because my Pastor for the last 7 years has done a wonderful job revealing to me the truth of what you are saying Quix, especially by his life witness. He has been truly persecuted for the truth of Jesus Christ our Lord these last 7 years. No one can personally "get his goat". The abuse on him is like water rolling off a duck's back, or teflon. God's grace shines in his face. This makes satan and his forces furious.
In a hurray.
Here is good explanation and other info about this
http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/immacon.htm
The Immaculate Conception:
The Blessed Virgin Mary is the “New Ark of the Covenant”.
GOD was very meticulous as to how the Hebrews were to construct the wooden ‘Ark of the Covenant’ in Exodus 25. The Ark was destined to be the most sacred object on earth by GOD because it contained GOD’S “Word”, written on the stone tablets handed down by Him to Moses. It was so sacred that Uzzah, who had good intentions, died instantly just by just touching it as it was about to tip over in 2Sam 6:2-8. Since the wooden Ark of the Old Testament was but a “type” of the “New Ark” of the New Testament, and therefore inferior to it, then how much more for merely a man not to touch the “New Ark of the Covenant”? What is reserved for GOD only, is GOD’s only.
GOD and sin are mutually exclusive (Rev 21:27). Does not it stand to reason that when GOD created the “New Ark of the Covenant”, the vessel that contained “His Word” (Jesus Christ, John 1:1) that He would be equally or more meticulous in creating it? Can GOD co-exist with original sin in the same vessel, the womb of Mary? That ‘vessel’, Mary, had to be worthy of the ‘Treasure’ she carried, Jesus The Christ, the Word Incarnate.
What is the purpose of Baptism? It is to remove the stain of original sin. When we are baptized, sin goes out and GOD comes in. Baptism to remove sin and allow GOD to come in was not instituted until after Jesus had started His ministry (John 3:22-23, 4:2).
So The Blessed Virgin had to have a stainless sin-free body and soul in order for GOD incarnate to dwell within her. GOD imputes the stain of original sin into the soul of each person He creates. However, He did not do so for His only Son. What makes you think He could not do so for His Son’s mother as well?
Who was the first person to call Mary “Blessed”?
It was GOD Himself through the Angel Gabriel in Luke 1:28. If GOD said “Hail, full of Grace, the Lord is with thee”, in the same verse, could Mary have been ‘full of grace’ or ‘blessed’ or have the ‘Lord with her’, had she been stained by original sin? If you say ‘yes’ to that one, then please explain your answer to me?
By being “full of Grace”, and being told “the Lord is with thee”, is she not higher than Eve who was never told these things? If so, was Eve created with original sin? No? Then why do you think Mary, who is higher than Eve, was born with original sin? Wouldn’t having original sin make Mary lower than Eve? Eve is a “type” of Mary, who is the “antitype”. “Types” are always inferior to “antitypes” and always point to a much greater reality, and never to a symbol.
GOD will not join Himself with anything defiled, Wis 1:4-5, Isa 59:1-4,
Rom 1:18-32, Rev 21:27.
For these reasons, Mary had to be immaculately conceived: Gen 3:15,
Ex 25:8-40, Psa *4:4,18:23,51:10, Psa 132:8, *Song 4:7, *Wis 1:4, Isa 59:2,
*Ez 44:1-3, Lk 1:28,42, *John 1:1 and 1:14 together, Eph 5:27, Tit 3:7.
Some non-Catholics have a problem with the Immaculate Conception of Mary. It is a major ‘stumbling block’ for them. They miss several very important points.
They try to bring GOD down to our human level in order to explain His ways. If they cannot explain it in a human way, then they say, “It simply could not have happened.” This is as bad as to try to raise our human ways up to GOD’s divine level. It simply cannot be done. They fail to realize that GOD’s ways are not our ways, nor are GOD’s thoughts our thoughts’. Isa 55:8-11
The first Protestant had this to say of the Blessed Virgin Mary:
“It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin.”
Martin Luther, (Sermon: “On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God,” 1527).
Isn’t it strange that most of Protestantism does not believe in the Immaculate Conception today?
Who was the first Protestant to discard this doctrine in which the founder of Protestantism believed? Jesus Christ was born without original sin since He is GOD.
John the Baptist was born without original sin also. Luke 1:15
Why then could anyone say that the Mother of GOD could not have been immaculately conceived?
A monk's life in those days was austere and severe. They rose at 3 am for first prayers and prayed 8 times per day. The legend is that Luther was caught in the open during a thunderstorm and made a bargain with God to become a monk. He found he did not like the monastic life and eventually was ordained a full priest and eventually attained a doctorate and a position at the University of Wittenburg.
Wikipedia has this photo of his house:
Hardly a poor man's house - he also owned land and had either sharecroppers or paid others to farm for him. He also married a former nun that he spirited away from a convent. He argued vehemently against defending Europe from the invading Turks and it wasn't until the Siege of Vienna that he finally came to his senses - with the realization of a true enemy on his own doorstep, being in Germany and the enemy threatening Austria. Three days before he died, he delivered his last sermon which was entirely devoted to driving all the Jews from Germany.
Wealthy? Look at the size of his house - which is even more telling since the houses in urban Europe are a lot smaller than in the US. He indulged in a lot of forbidden fruits including the rejection of both monastic and priestly vows and in the marrying of a nun.
Self indulgence, wealth and luxury. And extremely anti Semitic. If he were alive today, he'd make a fortune on TV.
I just posted a short summary of Luther. Calvin has been well covered elsewhere on FR over the last couple of years. Shall I recap? Zwingli not so much, but since he was just nuts, not a lot of attention has been paid to him.
“”And we who have the Spirit of God within us and have access to that Spirit are heretics according to your religion???””
The Holy Spirit does not lead someone to bash the Sacraments of the Church and it’s teaching on the Blessed Mother. This is your own spirit or an evil spirit that causes someone to do this
Gotta run.
I wish you a peaceful day!
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.