Nothing like a little bit of heresy to spice up a morning...
That's why we pray to Mary for help. http://www.indefenseofthecross.com/apparitions.htm
|
|
Great Apparitions
|
|
|
|
|
|||
| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/14/2014 6:31:52 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Lunar eclipse tonight. |
Posted on 04/05/2014 5:57:23 AM PDT by Gamecock
Yes, these "types" never seem to actually discuss the topic of the OP but quickly get sidetracked into repetitive arguments that rarely settles a matter. I think it is a common tactic to avoid acknowledging uncomfortable truths.
Good, I was not aware of that. Which Prot churches say this prayer in their assembly ? The Our Father is the only case of which I'm aware that the disciples asked him to teach them how to pray and his teaching was specifically recorded as inspired Scripture. I don't think it can be improved on, but if you do, and have faith to do so, improve on it. It should be written in my heart. I should say it daily, as the Spirit of God brings it to mind, loving God with all my heart, soul, and strength. That would never be a vain repetition, but rather O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy praise. For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth : That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly. And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him. After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come . Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. And it came to pass , that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased , one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray , as John also taught his disciples. And he said unto them, When ye pray , say , Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come . Thy will be done , as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.
I think Joel Osteen has to squeeze this in at the end of every hour; it seems strained and somewhat vain to me when he does it. Joel Osteen and Bill Graham Sinner's Prayer Examples
I view these types of "Sinner's Prayers" as a Protestant/Evangelical religious tradition. They have an appearance of being scriptural (sort of like Gospel Music) but fall short of inspired Scripture. They don't seem right to me. What do you think ?
I don't think Messiah taught us to pray to himself everyday. I don't think it is wrong. I think we can call on him in spirit and truth. He taught us to pray to God the Father. I find that significant and worthy of my attention and respect. God is One. The Son always honors the Father. The mother always points to the Son.
No, that is not clear or correct. Indeed it helps if you are going to post opinions to acquaint yourself with the nature of the controversy and the text of the relevant posts before opining. And the issue was what the correct rendering is, and her reference to the "original Latin" being "the original English translation" (though that was actually the Wycliff Bible from the Vulgate), infers that this "original Latin" was the "original language" that Lk. 1:28 was written in.
As the issue was what Lk. 1:28 really says, then referring to "original Latin" is misleading, unless she made it clear that she considers this superior to or definitive of the Greek, which she did not.
And what the Greek says is that both Mary as well as all believers (Lk. 1:28; Eph. 1:6) are "graced," (kecharitōmenē from the Greek word charitoō) being used to describe both, and all generations are to call Mary blessed among [en] women .
But the only one (though in some mss Stephen, in Acts 6:8) said to be full of grace is the Lord Jesus, "full ("plērēs) of grace (charis) and truth," using "plērēs," which denotes "full" 17 other places in the NT.
Where does the [Roman] Catholic church teach that Gregory "wrote as the Holy Spirit dictated to him"?
Nowhere: I was pointing out the detail of the image I posted.
More than that. You were objecting to my statement that the Holy Spirit did not inspire the writers of Scripture to write in Latin, as stating that "nothing else the prelates and doctors of the Holy Church wrote is inspired," or that "specifically what they wrote in Latin is not inspired." Which "opinions of yours" you said were not the faith of the Church.
Thus it is evident these opinions were what you were objecting to, and you followed with, "Gregory the Great writing as the Holy Spirit dictates to him."
It is obvious the latter is in response to my opinions you objected to, as being contrary to prelates and doctors of the Holy Church being inspired of God, by which is meant being inspired so that the Holy Spirit dictates to him, unless you post irrelevant pictures. And as the context of my remark was obviously Divine inspiration of Scripture, then it infers you are supporting Gregory as one (among others) that wrote under Divine inspiration as with the writers of Scripture.
So back to questions. Do you hold that such men as Gregory (among others wrote under Divine inspiration as with the writers of Scripture?
Do you hold that Popes in speaking infallibly also do so, or that God is otherwise the author of these infallible statements, so that it is a Divine document as Scripture is?
That is the difference between Protestants posting their thoughts and ideas, typically quite heretical and without authority other than inside their own heads.
Actually, RCs example how adept they are at variously interpreting Rome among themselves, as it appears you are, lacking an infallible interpreter for their infallible interpreter.
Try to respond with clarity, and without obfuscation and your usual recourse to insults.
I do not think he said you cannot post links to threads, or even certain posts which is done quite often and can be helpful as informative, but that we are not to post links to continue a debate from another thread, but to go back and deal with it there.
That is hard not to do when dealing with a poster who uses the same tactics from thread to thread which you object to as it degrades the level of debate, but they deny it, or denies he/she said something contrary to what they now assert, but i think the intent is to stop crossover personal debates.
Hmmmm...would the "League of Mary" also qualify?
Yes -- that was clear enough to me, which was I pointed out that very aspect to you, which is how the discussion over a particular verse went a bit sideways, and where seeing a statement made by daniel1212 in the midst of such as that (dan-the-man, or dan-the-freeperman I may refer to him,in the future) brought reply from yourself.
Now as to the related discussion there --- and I knew you would go there --- I saw it all as it unfolded, and knew the solution just as I saw the problems as they arose also.
So the lecturing tone taken towards myself is both superfluous and not needful, nor helpful either to myself at this juncture.
As I had asked of you;
stressing there in bold the word dictated which as I did take pains to point out, holds a particular meaning, particularly in regards to canon -- for if a thing be dictated and thus faithfully recorded, and those words coming from and/or by the Holy Spirit, then that would make the writing be equal to the being word of God, resulting in some unspecified document being written by Gregory as direct transcription of the same.
Yet as to where the Church teaches that Gregory wrote as dictated by the Holy Spirit, you replied to me;
So it was YOU who was "pointing out the detail". Am I getting that correct?
Now beneath the image (of an ornate carving) displayed in your own comment #312 were the exact words;
which I initially took to be your own words of description.
Checking a bit more thoroughly while composing here reply, I see that the image is separate from the words both above and below the image, as they are also when using my browser and opening "view image info", copying from there it's location, and opening it in another window or tab, there is the image only, with no textual information included with the image itself as it would visibly appear. All of which confirms that it was you who wrote the words seen below the image in reply #312, or if not, would leave only a copy/paste function for the sentence isolated from the image, which would have necessitated being deliberately undertaken in regards to the textual information (below the image) all of which would results in having you, yourself making or presenting claim that this Gregory the Great (otherwise known as St. Gregory I, who was indeed once the bishop of Rome --thus a Latin church "pope") was as was being depicted in the ornate carving (a wonderful and masterful carving it is) again copy/pasting directly from the words found beneath that image, indicated by you to be; "... writing as the Holy Spirit dictated"
But now you seem to be telling me you are not saying that the Holy Spirit was dictating what Gregory was depicted to being then writing...but that, as you now say when called on it, and what was conveyed as "truth" concerning the image and the words both; ;
So now -- it's more "art" which "has it's own language" but the "dictated by the Holy Spirit" language or words initially put there by YOU -- are now also backed away from by referring to is as being merely "inspired".
Where in the "language of Art" (capital "A" art, we should all take note) is there some difference between "dictated by" and "inspired by" that could apply those meanings being so interchangeable in regards to the Holy Spirit itself?
I don't think there is such a consideration -- even in "the language of Art". Stop making things up, and own up to your own words -- and what those words mean.
Then --- you could well enough (and simply enough --easy-peasy, no problemo whatsoever in regards to my own self) more openly admit first that the word dictate went too far (for as you confessed, the church ecclesiastical body which is the Roman Catholic church does not teach Gregory wrote "by dictate of the Holy Spirit", after which you could then adjust your own words to the lesser "inspired".
There is significant difference between the two words "dictate" and "inspire", as I took the trouble to stress & underline.
Why is this so difficult? It's always like this. All this squirming around. It is why I need write like a prosecuting attorney -- to keep people from wriggling away from their own words -- or shifty-shift pretending they don't meqan what they obviously enough do -- and the tow words in question --- holding precise theological definition and usages. They are NOT interchangeable.
Even when or if we use the phrase "inspired by the Holy Spirit" only in regards to Gregory, the question there remains -- does this inspiration of the Holy Spirit (no less) extend to all which he wrote? Every letter? How about every sermon-like teaching of Gregory's (of which there are more than a few that have been transmitted down to us in this day) of which I can read for myself -- thanks to Protestants like Schaff there at the last mile of transmission-line. Not all of those one would think (after reading them) would fully lend themselves to being among "inspired" written works, but more precisely while we are still being generous enough toward the man (hopefully) most all would be better classified as written by a man informed by faith and tradition, and I would like to add (in my own opinion) informed and influenced by the Holy Spirit. Thus are the doctors more accurately spoken of (in official RCC teachings) or so I have been led to believe, rather than spoken of as writing under the[direct] inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for terminology such as "influenced and led by" has definition varying and being something lesser than as directly "inspired"much less "as dictated by".
If there is a problem with that -- then we will return to Gregory and what he did write, to investigate in close detail what he wrote that would be so problematic for papists -- if you insist on terming all of his writings "inspired".
Your choice. Choose carefully.
To return to your own reply towards myself, in your own closing communication -- after speaking of yourself posting to the FR RF,
you have the nerve to speak of Protestants
The very phrase which in my initial reply to you concerning the words which you included as informational & instructive beneath the image --- came not from the RCC as to their own regard -- but from your own mind, from "inside your own head". Is that not true?
Unless you be bringing whatever it is from the RCC magesterium in words found there --- then your own arguments would themselves be "coming from your head" if just to suffer rewrite.
As you did say --- you write much as to the teachings "as you understand them".
But after terming dan-the-man an "internet babbler" fail to show yourself in actuality any better -- for daniel quite often sources his work well, leaving himself to be bringing support for the greater bulk of what he writes, but may have been wandering somewhat in his conversation with the other poster -- who had by slight mis-worded mistake of her own (entirely forgivable) had begun the distraction...
By which I mean -- if he is a "babbler" any beyond the single consideration he was momentarily mistaken for -- but admitted to some error allowing himself to be corrected -- then what does that make yourself, when having committed a possible slight (one word out of place -- not belonging --- put in place of another more precise but still questionable in application -- even according to RCC teachings and attitudes towards "doctors" who inform, but themselves not write that which be equal in inspiration to such as Paul's writings, in comparison OF "inspiration") but a yet worse babbler who himself misleads by writing from "the thoughts in his own head" but will scarcely admit to being in error when called on it? Dictated by The Holy Spirit -- "the language of Art" my foot.
In other words -- get real. I'm not interested in the continual self-justification act. Just stick with the info, and spare the broad-brush insult commentary so that I not be continually forced to respond also to that, which is just so much your own opinions coming across as flame-bait.
If it was clear then i would not have asked the questions i did. I will expand on this in responding to the other post you made to me today.
Father Eric Roy, superior general of the Sons of Mary, an affiliate of the "Army of Mary", said Giguère has not claimed to be the reincarnation of the Virgin Mary, and that the 92-year-old Quebec woman "receives graces" from the Virgin Mary and God. "The Virgin Mary took possession of her soul. I would rather say it that way," said Roy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_Mary
Then we have the Legion of Mary who requires:
The spirituality of the Legion of Mary is essentially based on the approach of St. Louis-Marie Grignon de Montfort as put forward in his book True Devotion to Mary.[6] Grignon de Montfort promoted a "total dedication" to Christ through devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, which later also influenced popes such as John Paul II, as mentioned in his Apostolic Letter Rosarium Virginis Mariae. Another important element that shaped Legion spirituality was Frank Duff's devotion to the Holy Spirit. He promoted the (in popular devotion often neglected) adoration of the Third Person of the Trinity through the Virgin Mary, Whom he saw as the "visible image" of the Spirit. This is why the introductory prayers and the Legion promise are directed to the Holy Spirit and the vexillium Legionis bears His image in the form of a dove.
The essential aim of the Legion of Mary is the sanctification of its members through prayer, the sacraments and devotion to Mary and the Trinity, and of the whole world through the apostolate of the Legion.
The idea of an organization where ordinary laypeople in all situations of life would work for their own sanctification and for the conversion of the world was groundbreaking for its time. Only when the Second Vatican Council (1962–65) promoted such ideas in its documents did such an approach gain wider acceptance in the Catholic Church. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Legionis
Reading the writings of Catholics such as Louis DeMontfort's "True Devotion to Mary" reveals that there certainly IS a worship and prayer TO Mary that is condoned and encouraged in the Roman Catholic Church.
Be careful who you accuse of spreading "lies".
I imagine there may very well be some Roman Catholics in heaven and perhaps a few will be quite surprised at all the non-Catholic Christians that are also there. Being that we will be in heaven with the Lord of Glory and be given the mind of Christ wherewith to understand the great mysteries previously unfathomable to our finite minds, we will at last be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ, which passes knowledge, that we might be filled with all the fullness of God. We will finally realize that we are there NOT because of the righteous deeds we have done, or because we deserved or merited or earned the redemption and salvation we have been given, but:
In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and understanding, he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ. In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory. (Ephesians 1:3-14)
We will have all eternity to sing His praises. Glory to God!
First, approach little furball (LFB) with a treat (freeze-dried chicken or salmon usually works).
Hold out treat at arms length, but not within claw-swipe range (CSR).
Allow LFB to sniff said treat. If she eats it and stays, you can proceed to next step. However, if she grabs the treat, hisses and scurries away, know that at least you made some kind of impression and, if you're lucky, she may permit you to pay homage with a treat in the future - don't get your hopes up.
If LFB accepts homage and remains, ease a little bit closer while still out of said CSR.
Look LFB in the eyes and slowly blink several times (this is a sign of affection, if you're lucky, or at least a non-aggressive signal.
Notice if LFB returns said slow eye blink (SEB). If yes, you have been permitted in her presence and may continue to next step. If no, and she seems to be playing a staring contest, continue the SEB as long as she remains in place. If LFB runs away, try again next time starting at step one.
Present top part of hand to LFB so she may smell you. If she butts your hand with her forehead (BYHWHF), you have begun a friendship and may be allowed to pet her. If LFB hisses and swipes said hand with claw or teeth and runs away, try starting again at step one once your hand has healed (you may want to try from step one with your other hand sooner, but you are taking a risk).
Finally, there will be some days when LFB accepts a treat, does the SEB and BYHWHF, accepts petting and acts like she is your very best friend. And on other days, she will act like NONE of that has ever happened between you two. You have to learn her moods and recognize when she will accept worship or she vants to be alone. Never, I mean NEVER, force your affections on her - kittehs are a proud species. They can be the sweetest, most cuddly little critters you have ever known or the meanest, nastiest, hellion ever created - sometimes in the SAME kitteh. You just gotta learn to read them right. Good luck. Start on 'em young. ;o)
Sorry for the delay in responding. I have long days these days.
As to your question concerning deprecated passages, confessional reformed Protestants (my affiliation) as a whole would not be disposed to include or exclude a passage based strictly on age. That lies more in the direction of those who support the Critical Text (CT).
In general, we reformers follow the Byzantine text type. This is the reason for the preference for the KJV, although as I indicated above not to the extremes of the KJV-Onlyist.
As for your question about age, it would be irrational to use physical age as the sole criteria. A very old manuscript may well be in excellent condition, but perhaps it was regarded as an inferior copy and therefore relatively unused by the active church. So a variety of factors may come into play to determine which text is probably closest to the original.
See for example Acts 2:30 in the following versions:
KJV:
“Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;”
Douay-Rheims Bible
“Whereas therefore he was a prophet, and knew that God hath sworn to him with an oath, that of the fruit of his loins one should sit upon his throne.”
New International Version:
“But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne.”
Here the Byzantine retains the full force of the language of incarnation, whereas the others, being based on older but arguably inferior texts, tends to reflect an ambivalence toward the connection of the Christ to the physical line of David, which would be expected if, say, Gnostic copyists had meddled with the text. So the Byzantine would here deprecate the CT reading, and in so doing would put us closer to, not further from, classical Christian theology.
In any event, regarding your original question, as I said before, the passages you cite can be read in good conscience by any Protestant without attributing to Mary a state of sinlessness, or any other uniquely Catholic attribution. Given a straightforward use of the Greek, of course.
Occasionally; our congregation (Wesleyan) is led in "The Lord's Prayer".
I never bring it up; but to me it is less an actual prayer, but a MODEL for a prayer, as I feel that is done more for a feeling of solidarity among folks in the congregation: but that's just me speaking.
(Sorry for the three 'but's in one sentence, but my brain is going really slow this morning.)
Dang!
I just did 2 more!
Would showing where Mormonism teaches that GOD led Joseph Smith to re-'translate' the KJV of the Bible help any?
|
|
Great Apparitions
|
|
|
|
|
|||
I was called UGLY! by a toad once...
The phrase “Scaredy Cat” applies to ALL my cats, except LFB’s mom Smoky.
They were all born out in the barn somewhere and grew up in the shadows, only venturing out within my sight at the sound of dry catfood clanking into their feeding bowl; a large stainless steel wheel cover.
KJV:
“Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;”
Douay-Rheims Bible
“Whereas therefore he was a prophet, and knew that God hath sworn to him with an oath, that of the fruit of his loins one should sit upon his throne.”
New International Version:
“But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne.”
It might help to refer to the OT to SEE just what the PROMISE was, to determine how 'close' the NT translations are.
Hmmmm...would the “League of Mary” also qualify?
Only in your little protestant dreams.
AMDG
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.
