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.
According to these verses, we should expect their fulfillment for the ethnic Jews when and if the Jews convert to Catholic Christianity. At this point the Church is the heavenly Canaan.
Thank you, your blessing is very dear to me. Thank you for the patience of reading these long pages.
That is the part I disagree. Christ made it very clear during His ministry that the Gentile Catholic nation will replace ethnic exceptionality of the Jews. See the Workers in the Vineyard parable, the Wicked Husbandmen parable and the Guests at the Wedding parable. While the sermon of Peter is addressed to the Jews, its message is universal, and so the prophecy of Joel is universal, that is, Catholic.
[28] And it shall come to pass after this, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy: your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. [29] Moreover upon my servants and handmaids in those days I will pour forth my spirit. [30] And I will shew wonders in heaven; and in earth, blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke. [31] The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood: before the great and dreadful day of the Lord doth come. [32] And it shall come to pass, that every one that shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved: for in mount Sion, and in Jerusalem shall be salvation, as the Lord hath said, and in the residue whom the Lord shall call. (Joel 2)
We ought to obey God, rather than men. (Acts 5:29)
That a Protestant should take umbrage at that only shows the cowardly servility to powers that be, so characteristic of Protestantism.
Joel is speaking to Israel. Not the Gentiles. It could not be clearer. And so is Peter, on the day of Pentecost. Read WHO Peter is addressing. It is ISRAEL. Not the Gentiles.
Joel is addressing the Jews of his time, correct, but his prophecy is fulfilled for the Catholic Holy Nation of God, the “kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people” (1 Peter 2:9), the Church that Christ “purchased with his blood” (Acts 20:28). The prophecy of Joel will apply to the Jews if and when they convert to Catholic Christianity. At this point, the bulk of the Jewish race is still wandering the desert.
forgot Smvoice’s ping.
But the offer to Dan was to "water" him (if he asked nicely).
As to;
What can be very difficult is to not "resist" civil law, but to obey it, as the scriptures tell us to, even when it makes us suffer. Shadrach Meshach and Abednego did not "resist" or attempt to flee, but bravely submitted to the decreed punishment.
Closer to our own era (my era, anyway) an example could be not resisting military draft. More than a few "Protestants" and Roman Catholics too, had to face that during the Vietnam era. We're they all "cowards" for their "servility to powers that be"?
Think about what you are saying. There are veterans here. Many of them have long had to wrestle with just how much to obey authority, where to draw a line against doing so -- and how best to do so as a free man without tearing at the fabric of society, causing more overall harm than good. That can take guts --- to find and stick with wisdom come what may, regardless of how one is tempted towards lawlessness...
Leaving that aside for a moment, my umbrage was for you having expressed in contextual meaning, the same crudity towards a freeper here, of "watering" with bodily wastes the same as you aimed at "civil law", with the conditional --- If he were to "ask nicely".
The crude language was cause for deletion of the initial comment (aimed at "civil authority"). Yet the same crudity was extended towards a freeper here. Now that has been deleted also...
It was wise-guy, "fighting words" garbage talk. And now, you twist it further into equating my objections to your statements with "cowardly servility". More fighting words, from you.
You may yet get what it is that you are agitating for. As far as I know, it is possibly already on the way to your doorstep
Indeed, or Scripture for that matter. For as a Catholic, then your views are 100% scriptural regardless.
If you said one thing and I figured out another from your meandering prose, I apologize.
It is part of your modus operandi to claim lack of perspicuity, but what i said was plainly stated , and even further explained, yet you twice misconstrued it to your own end in your carelessness or RC zeal to see support. As you do with Scripture. Both of which is what you need to apologize for.
I stand by my post 2474: presbyteros is used in the 6 passages I quoted as only a person who is a priest can be described
Thus you correct the Holy Spirit who choose to use a different word than hiereus, in distinguishing them from priests! It remains that the word for priests, "hiereus" is NOT used in the 6 passages you quoted, nor ANYWHERE for NT pastors. And presbyteros (elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseers) simply does not mean "priest." Presbyteros denotes maturity while episkopos denotes function, with both words in ordination denoting the same shepherding office. (Titus 1:5-7) It was episkopos that they ordained in every church, (Acts 14:33) and to whom they went to (along wih the apostles) in Jerusalem in a matter of disputation, (Acts 15:2,4,22) and which Paul called together. (Acts 20:17)
In addition, ordained priests were not the only ones who could engage in ordination, (Num. 27:18; 1Ki. 19:19; Acts 13:1-3) yet a shared functions still does not make pastors to be formally called priests rather that elder/overseer, in distinction from all other believers (which distinction presbyteros and episkopos "of the church," makes), unless the Holy Spirit needs correction (blasphemous) Yet a key distinction is that they do not have the separate unique sacerdotal function of priests, besides needing no genealogical descent.
And the fact is that formally calling pastors "priests" was a later development, due to imputation of distinct theological function, due to seeing episkopos/presbyteros uniquely consecrating elements to offer up expiatory sacrifice. But the Holy Spirit refuses to cooperate in is name change from episkopos/presbyteros to hiereus, but only uses the latter for OT or pagan priests, apart from the general priesthood of all believers.
Indeed Rome is a law unto herself, beyond the realm of civil law, and that is your real premise.
Those passages show what an elder or overseer was doing and as you rightly point out did not receive the title or description of “priest” by the Bible writers.
No peculiar dress, no rehearsed hand movements and positions during “mass”, no special titles, no laying face down at a pope’s feet or bended knee and kissing the ring....need I go on? No tonsure, no mitre,.....
And Mary is dead.
Then what about these statues of Mary weeping tears of blood?
that is not what Christ asks us to do.
Matthew 19:21, Mark 10:21, Luke 18:22, Matthew 5:3-11.
Incredible! Your first 3 texts only consist of the same account in which one individual is told "tell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me," yet as already shown you, the former is nowhere shown to be a universal command, while the general requirement given to those who are rich in this world is that that be ready to distribute, willing to share. (1Tim. 6:18)
Furthermore, the command to "follow Me" is manifestly not to live a life secluded from the world, for Christ and His disciples did not (except when imprisoned), but to confront the world with the gospel. And thus after intensive training, the early church "went everywhere preaching the word." (Acts 8:4; 11:19)
Your remaining passage is that in which promises are made to those who are poor in spirit, and who mourn, and are meek, and hunger and thirst after righteousness, and are merciful, and are pure in heart, and are peacemakers, and are persecuted for righteousness sake, being revile and maligned. But which does not mean or require living a life secluded from the world, for again Christ and His disciples did not, nor other great souls. For they overcame the world in openly confronting and exposing the world that tried their faith, not by a life escaping from it.
And it is you are continually being exposed as one who engages in attempts to compel Scripture to support Rome, under the premise that if you are a good Catholic, then your views are 100% scriptural. Basically engaging in truth by decree. And then maligning others as being Scripturally illiterate! Like mother, like son. Give it up.
I was intending to have given reply to the DRA (Douay-Rheims American 1899 Edition) citations, but you have been clear enough all along.
There are other comparisons which could be made, but the centrally important you have covered well.
It is shame you have been consistently misconstrued. I have been on the receiving end of similar more than once on this thread, from the same guy.
Much earlier I had said in regards to prayer, that I would stand with the Jews and in that pray only to the One True God, as how Christ Himself also directed us to do.
For my mentioning "standing with the Jews" that was taken fully out of context (as I expected it would be, even as I wrote it) and spun as if I was with them in all things, with the snippet of quote buried within adjusted re-wording which I did not say, changing the context and meaning, apparently in attempt to hang the reworded around my neck.
I resent that sort of thing. Honest mistakes are one thing, but continual deliberate twisting of words is of the devil himself -- no doubt about it.
To a casual observer it could have appeared as if I had said it as I was apparently being quoted -- but careless use of italicization, including his own words and shifted "context" mixed with what I did say, was presented as if I had said things in the adjusted context -- which change gave an entirely different meaning to what I said, leaving a mess difficult to untangle. I sense something much more (and darker) than simply a man and a man's mind at work in those sort of "doings". Do you know what I mean?
As you described your own experience;
Did you see how that was attempted to be spun? He tried to turn it into a Protestant-bash. That was wrong on many levels, all at once...
In these discussions, it seems that for some to justify their own "beliefs" the faith of others must be dislodged from them, the helmet of salvation knocked off the head, the shield of faith spit upon, the sword of truth LIED about, and the feet shod with the preparation of Gospel of Peace stepped on, daring one to a fight, agitating for it by turning the discussion towards fighting words and flames (while talking about how those whom are being rudely mistreated are so lacking in "love").
Oh, really? What reply number was it where the man openly said he was playing to an audience as it were, and was not much interested in engaging in real discussion with those who would disagree with himself?
yeah; what about ‘em?
Indeed, but if seeking poverty is the ideal than vote Democrat as most RCs do. And rather than that the rich need to sell all and live in a monastery to be saved as per ,fringe RCs, we see this:
RERUM NOVARUM: Whoever has received from the divine bounty a large share of temporal blessings, whether they be external and material, or gifts of the mind, has received them for the purpose of using them for the perfecting of his own nature, and, at the same time, that he may employ them, as the steward of God's providence, for the benefit of others. "He that hath a talent," said St. Gregory the Great, "let him see that he hide it not; he that hath abundance, let him quicken himself to mercy and generosity; he that hath art and skill, let him do his best to share the use and the utility hereof with his neighbor." - http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html
Other RCs (http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=587700) opine things such as,
Jesus did not utter a wall-to-wall condemnation of wealth. If your friend is a charitable soul, is pleasant to be around, does not gossip about or badmouth people, tries to be forgiving, volunteer in things where she doesn't shine, in short the whole world doesn't revolve around her, she'll be fine.
Just to be clear, there is no sin in being materially successful. You will never find anything in all official Catholic teaching that says success is a sin...There is no highest amount of money or possessions you can accumulate that will qualify you for sin. Nowhere in any encyclical, papal publication, in Canon Law, or in the Catechism, is there any highest limit on what you can earn or own... the Bible must be understood as a unified whole. It cannot be picked apart in pieces. If you read it this way, you will get a very unbalanced, harsh, limited understanding of it. A unified understanding of the Bible is called “exegesis.” You cannot approach the Bible without it.... \Claiming that owning luxury items and being wealthy are sinful would indeed be heresy, under these conditions... Calling something a sin when it is not IS ITSELF a sin.
Of course a rich man can enter heaven, if he lives his life according to God's will. He will have to answer to God, when God asks "What did you do with the money?".
C.S. Lewis somewhere suggests that with regard to giving to charity, one guide can be how one lives compared to other's in one's income bracket. A Christian should usually be giving enough that he cannot live in the same luxury as others who make a similar amount of money.
I think they all be fake.
So do you believe that Buddhist monks find Christ?
Your Popes have routinely been blessed by Pagans and heretics. John Paul ii in particular even recieved the mark of shiva on his forehead, among other abomidable things. That is why I can’t take the Papists seriously. They make much hullabaloo about being the true church, while those in authority are all perverse infidels who undermine Christ.
I’ve seen enough of your erroneous teachings a double talk. I’ll just leave you with this piece of advice. When millions of real followers of Christ are one day missing and things begin to get real ugly unlike anything ever seen before it wasn’t aliens. I’m done with your version of “another gospel” and would advise anyone reading these posts to shy away from anything you say. Goodbye.
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.