Posted on 08/15/2013 7:03:11 PM PDT by annalex
Once a woman in the crowd surrounding Christ and His disciples cries out to Him:
Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck. (Luke 11:27)
What is it? We have, clearly, an act of venerating Mary. Note that the Blessed Virgin is venerated properly: not on her own but as the mother of Christ. Yet the reason for venerating is indeed concerning: it is her physiological and physiologically unique relationship with Jesus that is emphasized. That is not yet paganism with its crude theories of gods giving birth to other gods, but it is lacking proper focus and Jesus corrects it:
Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it. (Luke 11:28)
|
| The Virgin with the Child on her knees and a prophet pointing at the star. Catacomb of Priscilla, late 2nd c. Source |
Having gotten past this linguistic hurdle, we can understand clearly what this passage, Luke 11:27-28, does: it establishes veneration of saints based not on their blood relation to Christ but on their obedience to God. It is in that sense that we venerate Our Lady: given that Christ is the Word of God personified, she heard and kept both Him in person as her Child and His teaching, figuratively. In Mary the essence of sainthood is seen in the flesh as well as in the mind. We could say that by the late second century at the latest, when we find evidence of the veneration of both the prophets and the Mother of God in the catacombs, the two reasons to venerate a saint: his martyrdom as in the case of Polycarp, or his obedience to the Word, as in Mary, -- unite into a single practice.
“The Virgin Birth, then, was no big deal ? We venerate Mary because through her God became man. “And the Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us,” as John tells us. And he did this by being born of a woman, not just by suddenly materializing.”
I wish you guys would put my original comment up when replying to me. Sure does help not to have to wade back thru it all.
Lots of us have been obedient to the Lord but that does not mean we are to be praised or venerated. Mary’s act of obedience brought the Lord into the world which is thrilling but SHE is not to be made much of. She carried out God’s will for her life just like millions of Christians do every day and no one thanks us or venerates us or even knows who we are.
It is, I believe, just another way Catholics find to make themselves appear special and above the rest of us non-Catholics. While the rest of us outside Catholicism concentrate on bringing the good news of Jesus for salvation and forgiveness of sins to the unsaved, you guys can go on venerating Mary, etc, etc., etc. or whatever it is you do besides spreading the good news of Jesus.
If you are not doing that, then you are no Christian at all. The rest is just a waste of precious time while those who do not know Jesus are longing to hear about Him. So get on with it and forget all this other claptrap!
We have much to say about this, but it is hard to make it clear to you because you no longer try to understand. In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.
We shouldn't have to keep preaching on the very basics of the Christian faith - salvation by grace through faith apart from works through Jesus Christ our Lord - but here we are with those who refuse to understand the ELEMENTARY truths of God's word. Time is better spent on the MEAT rather than the milk of the truths of God. Getting the MILK right, of course, has to happen before the meat can be properly digested. Here's hoping there is some spiritual growth - God willing.
The Catholic philosopher, Peter Kreeft, made a very interesting point about the various schools of philosophy.
Some philosophies appear to be simple at first, but after much study, become cloudy and incoherent. Examples are pragmatism and materialism.
Others begin obscurely and end obscurely, like the modern French and German philosophies.
Others seem complex at first, but after much study, become clear. Such is the case with the Scholastics, with St. Thomas being the preeminent example.
Reading St. Thomas makes your brain hurt... at first. But once you understand the terms and the first principles, his teaching becomes very clear.
Why am I making this point? Because it's interesting to me. And somewhat related to your question.
A cursory examination of the Catechism might lead one to believe that Church teaching is arcane and obscure. But diligent study reveals the coherence and cohesion of Church teaching.
A man can go a long way in life by loving God with all his heart, and loving his neighbor as himself.
But there is much more that can --and needs-- to be said about God, man and man's salvation.
This, ladies and germs, is the shot over the bow intended to accuse us all of "Antinonianism". This actual heresy was something the Reformers ALSO disputed and is NOT what Protestants nor any of us have EVER espoused. The term:
Antinomianism may be viewed as the polar opposite of legalism, the notion that obedience to a code of religious law is necessary for salvation. In this sense, both antinomianism and legalism are considered errant extremes.
In the case of Christianity, the controversy arises out of the doctrine of grace, the forgiveness of sins and atonement by faith in Jesus Christ. If God forgives sins, what exactly is the disadvantage in sinning, or the reward of obedience?
There are several issues that are addressed by the charge of antinomianism. The charge may represent the fear that a given theological position does not lead to the edification of the believer or assist him in leading a regenerate life. Doctrines that tend to erode the authority of the church and its right to prescribe religious practices for the faithful are often condemned as antinomian. The charge is also brought against those whose teachings are perceived as hostile to government and established authority.
The first people accused of antinomianism were found, apparently, in Gnosticism; various aberrant and licentious acts were ascribed to these by their orthodox enemies; we have few independent records of their actual teachings. In the Book of Revelation 2:6-15, the New Testament speaks of Nicolaitans, who are traditionally identified with a Gnostic sect, in terms that suggest the charge of antinomianism might be appropriate.
Roman Catholicism tends to charge Protestantism with antinomianism, based in part on the distinctively Protestant doctrine of sola fide, salvation by faith alone, and the typical Protestant rejection of the elaborate sacramental liturgy of the Roman church, and its body of canon law. Within Roman Catholicism itself, Blaise Pascal accused the Jesuits of antinomianism in his Lettres provinciales, charging that Jesuit casuistry undermined moral principles. Charges of antinomianism have also been bandied about within the Protestant camp as well; Martin Luther accused Johannes Agricola of antinomianism and rejecting the notion of a moral law; other Protestant groups that have been so accused include the Anabaptists and Mennonites. Calvinists have also drawn charges of antinomianism. In the history of American Puritanism, Roger Williams was accused of antinomian teachings by the Puritan leadership of New England.
Theological charges of antinomianism typically imply that the opponent's doctrine leads to various sorts of licentiousness, and imply that the antinomian chooses his theology in order to further a career of dissipation. The conspicuous austerity of life among surviving groups of Anabaptists or Calvinists suggests that these accusations are mostly for rhetorical effect. http://www.theopedia.com/Antinomianism
As much as our RC FRiends would like to presume this is the gospel we promote, it is obvious that we certainly do NOT. Nobody here has ever said we can sin all we want and it doesn't matter, have we, annalex? We have repeatedly said that a life of holiness, one that honors God and brings glory to Him, is WHY we are saved by grace through faith and not by works and given the indwelling Holy Spirit. God has saved us for good works which He has before ordained that we should walk in them (Eph. 2:10). No one may boast before God for his salvation nor his motives for good works. In is Christ IN us who motivates them.
Not one of our righteous deeds contributes to our salvation which is by grace alone. So, sorry, you will not find that heresy among us here. Like the article says, it is for rhetorical effect and a pejorative term used to deny the truth of what really is being preached. Grace is grace.
Mary is the model for all Christians, which is why she ought “to be made much of.” As to our motives, what we do is to remind other who Jesus is by giving special honor to Mary as “Mother of God.” Mary, like all of us, is a creature of God, but she is unlike us in this respect, that through this creature the Creator entered creation. You say that you want to spread the news about Jesus but then you beg the basic question: who IS Jesus? What is it you are saying about him? Are you telling the truth about him?
But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.(Titus 3:4-7)
You quote Scripture talking about how our lights shine before men by our works yet you just told us earlier:
Like someone cares? We are talking, with St. James, salvation in eternity, not popularity.
Do you have some Scriptures YOU deny? Make up your mind!
Yes. So these don't save and the Catholic Church does not teach that they do.
Every good (or bad) work is covered by the Law...613 of 'em...Your religion certainly DOES teach that you guys are saved by following the law along with faith...
Except today, your new pope claims that faith in Jesus Christ is not even necessary for salvation...What a bonkers religion...
Your religion teaches that you 'must have' good works (which are covered under the Jewish law) to be saved...
Yes it does...You have been shown plenty of scripture...If you concentrate on James and ignore Paul, how can you call your religion an authority on scripture??? If you can't reconcile ALL of scripture, there's seriously something wrong with your theology...
AMEN!!!
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. (John 3:16-18)
Paul is speaking to new Christians who have been saved by faith alone...He is encouraging the saints to be involved with good works after the fact...
Col 3:2 Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.
Col 3:3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.
Col 3:4 When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.
That's one of the tactics of your religion...It's not done out of ignorance...Pull a single verse (or part of one) out of its context and try to build a new, unbiblical doctrine out of it...
There is no faith + works for salvation in that verse...
It is also the name of Jesus as well as the Holy Spirit...
All your works are works of the Law if you falsely believe those works are required for salvation...
You sure get nasty when Christians pull out scripture and correct you with it...
I might have balked at the idea...Would have been two miracles instead of one...
“Would any of us have refused to be the mother of Jesus had we been asked?
I might have balked at the idea...Would have been two miracles instead of one...”
I’m sure God could have pulled that off too, Iscool. lol
Jesus is THE MODEL FOR ALL CHRISTIANS.
Darn straight I am telling the truth.
No one but Jesus!
No, Yeshua is the model for all Christians.
“But there is much more that can —and needs— to be said about God, man and man’s salvation.”
Really there is not, Thomas. All one need know is Christ saves and by believing in Him one is saved. If one knows nothing else but that, one is secure for eternity.
I know you don’t believe it but, hey Jack, it’s the truth. Like I said before, you guys just want to make it all so complicated and it need not be.
Nothing wrong with digging deeper but the basic tenet of our faith is so simple even a small child can grasp it.
I think we’ve had this conversation before. :)
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.