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.
“All I said was that that particular post looked quite Catholic. “
Well, all Papists say that when I quote Augustine at them, since he is so clearly “Calvinistic” in his writing, (or, rather, Calvin is Augustinian?) that they don’t know how to react, since their religion has brainwashed them into thinking that such ideas could not have existed back then. So then they usually just sputter and start saying “I agree with that!” (happens every conversation!), even though they don’t.
“That is because no matter how hard you try, you guys are 60-80% Catholic, with some screws backwards.”
If that were true, how come you guys killed about 100,000 Calvinists in the Netherlands alone? Why did your Pope plead for the destruction of Geneva, if we are all 60-80% papists? And how come you won’t engage the scripture or my argument, to explain how your blatant contradiction of my words is really agreement, but are just doing your best to troll the heck out of me?
We did? That few? What a shame. Salvation being by grace alone dates from early Middle Ages:
the Catholic Church had explicitly affirmed the doctrine of sola gratia in the year 529 in the Council of Orange, which condemned the Pelagian heresy
Note that the Holy Church never affirms or condemns until there is a heresy raising up.
“but rather by grace alone to which men respond by faith and good works.”
The problem here is that you are being subtle to avoid contradicting yourself, since when you say “grace alone,” you mean, through baptism, and the sacraments, and obedience to the RCC, and prayer to the saints, which is really by man alone to receive grace, as it is a man who submits to them in order to receive it according to their merits. That certainly isn’t Paul’s or James’ position. James sums up the law by saying that we should, “If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well”(Jas 2:8). He enjoins us to no other obligations but the moral law only, though even this not with any expectation of perfection on our part to earn salvation, since he also says that just one sin makes us guilty of the whole law (James 2:10), which also destroys the Papist conception of various kinds of sins, since every sin is fatal. Hence the reason why we cling to Christ in faith, and this a living faith, though it is impossible to fulfill the whole law.
You also do not say “grace alone” to mean monergism, as Augustine does, who says that it is God who makes us believers, and thus we believe in God because He first chose us, and not the other way around.
“Read the opening paragraphs of Ephesians 2 again.”
Okay!
“And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)”
(Eph 2:1-5)
I see the Reformed doctrine of total depravity here. We, being dead in sin, could not believe until God quickened us by His Spirit, effectually saving us who had been by nature the children of wrath.
I like every bit of it!
“the Catholic Church had explicitly affirmed the doctrine of sola gratia in the year 529 in the Council of Orange, which condemned the Pelagian heresy
Note that the Holy Church never affirms or condemns until there is a heresy raising up.”
Speaking of the Council of Orange, does the Roman Catholic Church uphold the declaration of their own councils?
From Orange:
CANON 6 “...if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, “What have you that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7), and, “But by the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10).”
Compare to Trent:
CANON IV. If any one shall affirm, that man’s freewill, moved and excited by God, does not, by consenting, cooperate with God, the mover and exciter, so as to prepare and dispose itself for the attainment of justification; if moreover, anyone shall say, that the human will cannot refuse complying, if it pleases, but that it is inactive, and merely passive; let such an one be accursed”!
Council of Orange again:
CANON 8 If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him “unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:3)
Compare to Trent:
CANON V.- If anyone shall affirm, that since the fall of Adam, man’s freewill is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing titular, yea a name, without a thing, and a fiction introduced by Satan into the Church; let such an one be accursed”!
It seems that not only is just poor Augustine made accursed by Trent, as well as Luther and all the reformists who merely repeated the same things, but so are all the Bishops who participated at the Council of Orange!
“We did? That few? What a shame.”
Wow, thanks for revealing your true colors.
I do.
if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. (Matthew 19:17)
Do penance, and be baptized every one of you (Acts Of Apostles 2:38)
You also do not say “grace alone” to mean monergism, as Augustine does
Yeah. That could be. I go by what the Holy Church teaches and not by modern inventions.
I see the Reformed doctrine of total depravity here (Eph . 2)
Predestination you see, because it is the Catholic doctrine. Where do you see "total depravity"?
I am going to bed. G'night.
“if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. (Matthew 19:17)”
How come you didn’t quote the whole thing?
“And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” (Mat 19:17)
If only God is good, and if only good people can keep the commandments, and if people are good when they keep all the commandments, and if one sin makes you guilty of the whole commandments, so it follows that “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” (Rom 3:23-28)
The end of Christ’s conversation with the rich man confirms Paul’s conclusions:
“Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.” (Mat 19:23-26)
All this trouble could have been left out if you had bothered to read the whole sentence!
“Do penance, and be baptized every one of you (Acts Of Apostles 2:38)”
Penance!? You mean the Papist concept of making up for your sins by doing good works? Sorry, but the word is metanoeo, which means “to think differently, reconsider, to repent.”
By Baptism, since you agree with me about everything, I presume you mean the Jewish conception which requires converts to be baptized as a sign of their conversion? And thus, baptism is the same thing as “convert to Christianity”?
If so, you’re okay on that part too.
“I do.”
Good! So I hope that means you’ll be quite now about agreeing with me about everything, when you know you don’t.
“Predestination you see, because it is the Catholic doctrine.”
No, sorry, I don’t see the Papist doctrine about predestination (which is anti-Biblical), I see the Reformed/Augustinian doctrine about predestination. You really should learn the difference. As for total depravity, I see it right here:
“And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)”
(Eph 2:1-5)
Are you going to ask me to explain it? It should be obvious. But I won’t explain it unless you ask me to, since you yourself never actually back up anything you say with an explanation of any kind. You just throw it out there like spam. You also probably don’t even know what the reformed doctrine of ‘Total depravity” even means, and will probably just say something silly about it anyway regardless of what I say. So I’ll let you shoot first, and then I’ll respond to what ever confused ramblings proceed from your hands.
“I am going to bed. G’night.”
Don’t forget to pray to Mary to save you from Jesus! Cuz, let me tell ya, you NEED saving from Jesus!
Not really. A prayer to help is primarily a prayer for his councel as one who is human and has reached salvation.
That is desperate, as even if this were primarily what PTDS consisted of then it would still not explain why they did not not pray to angels when seeking protection and deliverance, as Catholics prayers to angels do now. Meanwhile the reality is that is that prayers to the departed abound with beseeching them to intercede, as in "I implore of you to obtain for me" (prayer to St. Anthony; http://www.catholic.org/clife/prayers/prayer.php?s=41), and to "strengthen me in my faith; establish me in virtue; guard me in the conflict," (prayer to patron saint) and to act in other ways which are seen in Catholic prayers to angels, which also can appeal to their compassion. (Glorious Prince of the heavenly hosts and victor over rebellious spirits, be mindful of me who am so weak and sinful and yet so prone to pride and ambition. - Prayer to Saint Michael for Powerful Aid). And prayer to Mary includes ones that make her an angel, and more so. (Sovereign Mistress of the Angels,..Who Is Like Unto God! O good and tender Mother!).
Moreover, Catholic prayers to angels asking for help, protection and deliverance (including your St. Martyr George, help me kill this dragon) would also be fitting in the OT, but not even a prayer to Michael the Archangel can produce even one! The utter lack of which there is no excuse for if PTDS is to be supported by Scripture as doctrine.
May the lizard of Luther be slayed for the ages. Amen.
An unanswered prayer.
Reading the mind of another Freeper is a form of "making it personal."
Thanks. Written late and in haste. It was not reading his thoughts but was a criticism of his conclusions and basis for them, and better stated, "evidently you do not understand what the word "sound doctrine" means, and instead you are acting as Rome.
The Scriptures are not the supreme standard for Rome, as she is.
nowhere in Scripture do we find a list of the books to be regarded as Holy Scripture.
That is not necessary, as we see writings being recognized and established as being of God like as men of God were, based upon their character and attestation, even when rejected by those who sat in power. Thus the church began and thus the faith has often been preserved.
The general test for the Christian Scriptures was that they had to have apostolic authority.
Generally but not of necessity, while what established the apostles as being of God? The magisterium under who oversaw Israel as the steward of Scripture, or Scriptural substantiation in word and in power?
Under the RC model in which no one is to be followed whom they reject, then the church is rendered invalid as it began with an Itinerant Preacher whom they rejected, who esteemed a holy man in a hairy garment eating insects in the dessert, both of whom reproved the magisterium and whom they rejected. (Mk. 11:27-33)
Likewise Rome has rejected those whom God sent to reprove them and preserve faith, but whom were men of God regardless.
Regardless, it was still the supreme standard, and a RCs will themselves argue in seeking to defend the lack of personal reading among RCs, one does not need to have a copy to know (at least some of) Scripture.
the canon was developed by choosing which of the books were read aloud in the churches acrossd the Christian world.
And as bread from heaven is known by its qualities, effects and attestation, so it was read without compulsion and to which the 66 books of the Bible owe their enduring popularity. Magisteriums can ratify the "best sellers" list, but like true men of God, they can be of God regardless.
Walking int he good works God prepared in advance for us to do does not say that we remain in a state of grace through the sacraments.
It simply says that there are good works God wants us to do. Period.
Anything else is reading way more into it that the context allows for and is extrapolation and speculation.
, IAC, the inability of Luther and Zwingli to agree on critical issues, showed early that putting aside the authority of the pope and bishops created a question of who was to decide such issues.BUT ven before that, when Luther ended his seclusion and returned home, he found that Carlstadt had rather gone wild. There the real radicals who held that not even Scripture was the final authority but that only the Holy Ghost was the only infallible source, although of course, the Spirit spoke through prophets.
Since Pius XII in 1942 the Church has done a lot to encourage personal reading of the Bible, although I will admit that coming into the Church from a Protestant background, I found few priests who did much to encourage that, maybe because they personally were so little acquainted. Nowadays, however, if you listen to Catholic radio and TV you will find that the opposite is true.
People choose to sin. It just that no one ever chose not to sin.
That raises the question back in your court-why don't you refuse to sin?
It must have been. That is what is told in the scripture. By this time Joseph is gone.
And how do you know that between entering a house in Mark 2:2 and being presumably in a house, even though the Gospel only says “and gathering again” in Mark 3:20 no change of venue occurred?
OK, let's say this occurred on the front lawn of our Lord's closest relative's home. It doesn't change the fact that the closest members of our Lord's family thought He was crazy (Mar 3:20-21). And we know that the closest family came to seek Him (Mar 3:31) because He was causing family problems including His mother, brothers and sisters. We know that our Lord stated that those who seek to do the will of God are His mother, brothers and sisters. We also for the most part who His family was:
These are the facts.
Now you built up a whole theory of the two houses being the same and His family house, — in Capernaum, — only to be able to slander Mary as believing her Son was mad and Jesus for publicly abandoning her for that. Lovely. How about reading the scripture for what is in it, especially since your confession makes such a fuss about being “biblical”?
Oh, please.... No, I don't think Mary thought her Son was mad. But it is clear that 1) she harbored doubts, or 2) she went along for the sake of keeping peace in the family. This second scenario is totally plausible given the wedding at Cana when they came to Mary as the problem solver.
And, no, Jesus did not "publicly" abandoned her. The fact that she was aware of where Jesus was (since you say He wasn't at home) is proof that He stayed in contact with her.
In the end ALL abandoned Christ at the trial-including Mary.
How come you didn’t quote the whole thing?
There is nothing in the wider context that you provide that teaches salvation by faith alone either. All the scripture you cite conforms fully with the Catholic doctrines. I am not interested in Protestant interpretations, that may differ. If you have a question further I will be glad to answer.
the word is metanoeo, which means “to think differently, reconsider, to repent.”
An example of repenting we have from St. John the Baptist who wore a hairshirt and fasted, -- typical Catholic penance. Don't teach me words.
Baptism [...] I presume you mean the Jewish conception
Not at all, St. Peter and I mean the Catholic Sacrament of Baptism that washes away prior sin and makes someone Catholic Christian.
I see the Reformed/Augustinian doctrine about predestination
I am sure you do; I am not interested in Protestant interpretations when I have the Catholic Church to explain the Bible in full.
In short, if you have a question about the scripture, I will explain, and I would prefer it be on the topic of the thread: veneration of saints. I am not interested in your interpreting or opining about anything, with all respect.
Even though angels were present while saints simply were not there was no Mediator between men and God the Father revealed to the Jews; the concept is uniquely Christian. Further, I answered in the sentence you quoted: a saint is someone very much like me, who has overcome sin under the leadership of the Holy Ghost; an angel is someone I cannot model myself after.
Very often, upon praying to a saint, I refuse to sin. It is not difficult for a Catholic to live a life filled with grace and fortitude, for it is God walking in us.
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.