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.
Of course one has to believe in Jesus. The issue in Canon 1260 is those who have no way of knowing Jesus, because of liars like Marx, Mohammed or the Protestant charlatans.
I posted the answer to Cuban Leaf not long ago today.
You sound a bit upset.
I’m not Cuban Leaf and didn’t see it. What’s the post number? Or simply post that answer to me.
That part is true. Once a Catholic man is baptized he is born again and nothing but his own error could snatch him from the hand of God. On human error, I gave plenty of scripture that it happens even after baptism.
Thank you!
I’ve learned a new fact.
1633, 1634
Dude! They don’t know Jesus and don’t believe in Jesus. The RCC says they can be saved without knowing or believing in Jesus. There’s no two ways about it. It contradicts what scripture clearly teaches.
That i was not alone in seeing Rv. 12 as referring to Israel.
Seems more like muddy water to me.
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8-9
What part of than that which we have preached unto you do you not understand? You just admitted that the RCC teaches something the apostles did not which constitutes “another gospel” the teachers of which are to be “accursed”.
Even the DEAD ones?
I'm sure he will!
Just to see how you guys 'discuss' things!
Philemon 1:5 Hearing of thy love and faith, which thou hast toward the Lord Jesus, and toward all saints;
Paul called the members of every church saints.
Thank you. I will check them.
I’m sure that those who are not familiar with the bible fall for that eloquent verbosity, but you miss the point in your very last sentence when you say, “In short, the idea that every baptized person is a “saint” accordingh to how St. Paul used the word is another Protestant hoax.”
You create a straw man. I didn’t say every “baptised person”. I said every Christian. And the interesting thing is that whether anyone, including you or me, is a Christian is strictly between God and him/her. Many claim to be and are even baptized. It doesn’t mean they are.
Those that read the Bible and pray to Him for wisdom know the folly of praying to dead people. Our intercessor is Jesus and no other man or woman. By “our”, I mean followers of Christ.
This was discussed at great length already, in the first couple hundred posts. Why don’t you try reading the thread from the beginning?
It’s a cool idea, frankly, but I am undaunted - for now. I mean, before I feel it proper to invoke Matthew 7:6.
I’m sure he will!
Just to see how you guys ‘discuss’ things!
Why don’t you try reading the thread from the beginning?
The number itself cracks me up.
Jesus never said ‘born again’. He said ‘born from above’, and ‘born of water and the Spirit’. We may have a failure to communicate here.
On a related note, my church is one of those “KJV only” places. Two weeks ago the pastor was reading a verse with tricky “old english” words and had to tell the congregation that today it would mean “x”. Comically, my NIV bible interpreted it to be “x”.
Get it? The pastor, who only reads the KJV had to help the congregation understand its meaning by translating it into the NIV version. I don’t care who you are, that is danged funny!
It’s nice to read a translation that is in the language you actually speak on a daily basis. It is easier to understand His word. Of course, if you are really serious about it, you want to learn the original languages and read it that way. :-)
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.