Posted on 10/20/2014 9:31:28 AM PDT by marshmallow
The Church’s doors are wide open, to receive “not only the just”, “but the needy” too. Francis disproved assumptions about a “disputatious Church where one part is against the other”, guaranteeing its unity. He reiterated that no one ever called into question the indissolubility of marriage and marriage’s openness to life
Speaking after the vote on the content of the Synod’s final document, the relatio synodi (three key paragraphs in the draft document did not win the two thirds majority vote), Francis addressed the assembled Fathers saying: “Dear brothers and sisters, now we still have one year to mature, with true spiritual discernment, the proposed ideas and to find concrete solutions to so many difficulties and innumerable challenges that families must confront; to give answers to the many discouragements that surround and suffocate families.” In his speech, which received a five-minute standing ovation , Francis underlined that the Church’s “doors are wide open to receive the needy”, “not only the just”. He disproved assumptions about a “disputatious Church where one part is against the other”, and presented himself as the “guarantor” of its unity. He reiterated that no one ever called into question the indissolubility of marriage and marriage’s openness to life.
The relatio synodi, Francis emphasised, is “the faithful and clear summary of everything that has been said and discussed in this hall and in the small groups. It is presented to the Episcopal Conferences as ‘lineamenta’”, as a guiding text that is, for the Ordinary Synod in October 2015.
“I can happily say that – with a spirit of collegiality and of synodality – we have truly lived the experience of ‘Synod’, a path of solidarity, a ‘journey together’, the Pope said after thanking everyone present. “And it has been ‘a journey’ – and like every journey....
(Excerpt) Read more at vaticaninsider.lastampa.it ...
But it just gets tedious when people who have been around here for years, like you, and who should know better, feel they can slapdash any manner of snips'n'snails together and pass it off it Catholic Doctrine. Look, I don't mind a robust argument. But that only happens when you're actually giving an accurate account of what the other guys believe.
"A church that thinks Mary was God’s daughter..."
Would you please explain what you mean by this? Mary could be described as a "daughter" only in the sense that I can, in the sense that she is a handmaid, knows herself to be a handmaid, and is being addressed by an Archangel as a handmaid: a servant of her Savior. She is not, however, a "daughter" in a sense parallel to Jesus Christ being God's Son. Jesus Christ is God. Mary is a handmaid. Got that? Then you agree with what the Catholic Church believes about Mary.
"...born and lived without sin..."
Please checkout a relevant item in Biblical Koine Greek (LINK). You may not agree with it, but can't deny it's Biblical and denotes something unique: the title Kecharitomene is used nowhere else in any Biblical or non-Biblical Greek literature. I believe it's inspired.
"...and never died..."
This is not what the Catholic Church teaches.
If you're going to contend, contend with what we actually said. OK? It makes it a whole lot less tedious.
Ok I’ll bite please give actual scripture that tells me that the Sacrifice Christ made on the Cross wasn’t enough.
...or your carcass will end up on the heap with Cardinal Burke’s
Anyway, I was responding to the previous poster who said the Catholic Church insults non-Catholic Christians by saying "... their ministers [are] effectively phonies with no right to give communion."
This is mistaken because as far as I know, such ministers do not even claim they give "Communion" in the same sense claimed by the Catholic Church, i.e. "the Real Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity" of Jesus Christ" present in the Eucharistic Sacrifice.
Therefore these Protestants are not 'phonies' and nobody is calling them 'phonies.' I don't call them phonies. They say they are offering a symbolic meal which in no way, shape of form involves "Transubstantiation" or "Sacrifice," and we say, "Exactly."
We're actually in agreement on that point, if I am not mistaken.
"If I am not mistaken, I am not infallibe." :o)
One Year? Does he know something the rest of us don’t.
One Year? Does he know something the rest of us don’t.
Isn’t the church already mature after 2000 years?
Source: http://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/the-deposit-of-faith-and-the-holy-spirit-of-god.html
Sounds like catholics talk out of both sides of their mouths. These "new insights" which "can and does develop" but is never augmented.
Talk about having your cake and eating it too.
Guess the pope needs to re-read some of the teachings of the church.
I guess all this hopey/change (gee, where have we heard that before??) happens when man-made tradition is allowed to supplant the Word.
I think there’s a huge difference between welcoming living pastoral care for all sinners. -— and approval of the sin. Jesus welcomed everybody, all kinds of sinners - while also telling them to go and sin no more. The Church can do no better than the same.
Not in Modernism.
I checked out the link you provided and you've interpreted/represented the definition of Kecharitomene incorrectly.
The Greek in Luke 1:28 reads literally: καὶ εἰσελθὼν πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ Κύριος μετὰ σοῦ....greetings, you favored with grace, the Lord is with you.
The definition for the root word χαριτόω means I favor, bestow freely on.
A derivative of the word is used twice in the NT. Once in Luke and the other in Ephesians 1:6. The verse in Ephesians
Eph 1: 5-6:
5He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,
6to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.
In both instances it is God who is doing the bestowing...not us....not Mary. Only God.
Also, from your link you posted:
In Luke 1:28 "Kecharitomene" is nominative or titular, since it follows the greeting "Chaire" ---"Hail [name or title] --- thus the name would automatically be capitalized in English translations.
It is not a title. That is a very, very big twisting of the text by catholicism to elevate Mary to something she is not.
Additionally, Mary is always addressed as Mary. There is no name change as catholics alledge.
Let's deal with the allegation catholics make that Χαῖρε is some sort of title. It is not. It is in the imperative mood.
Wallace(Greek Grammer Beyond the Basics) notes the imperative can be used in a stereotyped manner in which it has suppressed its original injunctive force. The imperative is reduced to an exclamation. This occurs especially in greetings. (Wallace p493)
MODERNISM
A theory about the origin and nature of Christianity, first developed into a system by George Tyrrell (1861-1909), Lucien Laberthonnière (1860-1932), and Alfred Loisy (1857-1940). According to Modernism, religion is essentially a matter of experience, personal and collective. There is no objective revelation from God to the human race, on which Christianity is finally based, nor any reasonable grounds for credibility in the Christian faith, based on miracles or the testimony of history. Faith, therefore, is uniquely from within. In fact it is part of human nature, "a kind of motion of the heart," hidden and unconscious. It is, in Modernist terms, a natural instinct belonging to the emotions, a "feeling for the divine" that cannot be expressed in words or doctrinal propositions, an attitude of spirit that all people have naturally but that some are more aware of having. Modernism was condemned by Pope St. Pius X in two formal documents, Lamentabili and Pascendi, both published in 1907. (Etym. Latin modernus, belonging to the present fashion.)
All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.
Mature = Evolve? As in adopt liberal ideologies like homosexuality?
Maybe he’s thinking of Limbo.
Could be.
The current pope has done so.
At one point, when [Tony] Palmer was tired of living on the frontier and wanted to become Catholic, Bergoglio advised him against conversion for the sake of the mission.
Pope Francis later ordered Palmer to be buried as a Catholic bishop.
You may be surprised that I find it easy to agree with (almost) everything you've said and still make my point. I do not disagree with it. Nothing in the (excellent) Scriptures you cited, refutes what I wrote.
Quickly:
(1) Grace is bestowed upon Mary. Of course. Nobody denies that.
(2) Kecharitomene is related to two other NY woords also commonly translated "full of grace" and applied to two other personages: St. Stephen and Our lord Himself. Again, no problem. Nobody ever alleged that Mary is the ONLY person full of grace.
What's interesting here is the three distinct grammatical forms of the word (translated as phrases in English) which distinguish between being full of "grace" in three particular ways.
You would not assume that St. Stepehn is full of grace in exactly the same that Or Lord is, wold you? I would hope not.
We've got Jesus Who is full of grace because He is the source of all grace; we've got St. Stephen being filled with grace as the gratuitous gift of Our Lord; and we've got Mary, also being filled with grace as the gratuitous gift of Our Lord, but being filled in a plenary way.
as to whether Kecharitomene is a name or title: weill you look art the passage? She is being addressed a Kecharitomene: Hail, Kecharitomene. The word that comes after the salutation "Chaire" is the person being saluted, in this case the person is "Kecharitomene." The word after the form of address is the person being addressed.
The fact that Mary is always thereafter addressed as "Mary" does not mean that "Kecharitomene" is not also her name or title.
Jacob was often still referred to as Jacob, even after his name was made Israel.
Simon Bar-Jonah was addressed or referred to as Simon, as Peter, as Simon Peter, and as Kephas, after he received the name Kephas.
In other words, the Bible always shows people still being addressed by their original name.
If I said "Greetings, ealgeone" you couldn't very well say, "That doesn't refer to me: none of my family or friends is recorded as calling me that." No, we know it refers you, either as name or as title, simply because it comes after the salutation.
Nobody knew of Mary being addressed as Kecharitomene until years and years later, when she told St. Luke. It's quite possible nobody on earth --- nobody but the Angel Gabriel --- ever spoke to her in this way. It is a consecrated name similar to that which is referred to in Revelation:
"I will also give that person a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to the one who receives it” (Revelation 2:17).
We will all be eventually given names which reveal who we are in God's eyes. Not your legal name. Not your FReeper name. It's the real name which tells who you really are. I will also give that person a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to the one who receives it” (Revelation 2:17). Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/white-stone-new-name.html#ixzz3GmOxI73Z
It certainly seems catholics do as they keep saying Mary is full of grace. The text does not say that so it’s an implication by catholicism.
(2) Kecharitomene is related to two other NY words also commonly translated "full of grace" and applied to two other personages: St. Stephen and Our lord Himself. Again, no problem. Nobody ever alleged that Mary is the ONLY person full of grace.
Again you’re making an error in translation by insisting that κεχαριτωμένη is commonly translated as “full of grace”. IT’S NOT! Only two translations render the text this way…The Douay Rheims and Aramaic Bible in Plain English. The commentaries note the Vulgate has translated this incorrectly. So from an incorrect translation of the Greek we have incorrect theology.
The literal reading in the Greek of Luke 1:28 is “Greetings, you favored with grace!” As I noted earlier it is not a title based on the Greek. It is merely a greeting. Κεχαριτωμένη is a verb describing an action that has happened to Mary.
Compare with Acts 6:8 which reads as “ Stephen moreover full of grace and power….” This combination was not prescribed of Mary. Note the difference.
Πλήρης is an adjective meaning full, abounding in, complete, completely occupied with. It is assigning an attribute to the noun Stephen as both Stephen and Πλήρης are in the nominative case. They have to agree with each other.
Χάριτος is a noun meaning grace, favor, kindness. It is used in Luke 1:30 when the angel tells Mary she has found favor with God. What's interesting here is the three distinct grammatical forms of the word (translated as phrases in English) which distinguish between being full of "grace" in three particular ways.
You would not assume that St. Stepehn is full of grace in exactly the same that Or Lord is, wold you? I would hope not.
We've got Jesus Who is full of grace because He is the source of all grace; we've got St. Stephen being filled with grace as the gratuitous gift of Our Lord; and we've got Mary, also being filled with grace as the gratuitous gift of Our Lord, but being filled in a plenary way.
Well, two out of three isn’t bad. Except that Mary is not being filled with grace as we’ve discussed by the text. To continue to insist on this is disingenuous and I don’t think you’re that kind of a person.
as to whether Kecharitomene is a name or title: weill you look art the passage? She is being addressed a Kecharitomene: Hail, Kecharitomene. The word that comes after the salutation "Chaire" is the person being saluted, in this case the person is "Kecharitomene." The word after the form of address is the person being addressed.
Again, this is an incorrect reading of the text by assigning a title to Mary where one isn’t indicated by the text. She is not being addressed as “a” anything by the angel. The angel is describing something that is happening to her. She is being favored with God’s grace for what's about to happen.
It's akin to you coming into a room and saying,"Greetings, to all studying the Word."
Is "to all studying the Word a title?" Of course not.
And neither is κεχαριτωμένη.
It’s true that many of the non-Catholic churches are confused to the point of utter heresy about “communion” or “eucharist.” But fwiw, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (the most orthodox type of Lutheranism in the U.S.) believes that communicants take the real body and blood of Christ at communion.
Thank you for this clarification. I truly appreciate the LCMS on so many levels. I am grateful for any continuing education you may wish to offer!
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.