Posted on 04/04/2015 1:59:27 PM PDT by Steelfish
I wish Catholic could see how absolutely ridiculous that concept is. God is not forever creating the world. The world is not forever being flooded. In fact God said it would never happen again. Jesus is not forever walking this earth in the flesh. Nor is He forever being offered as a sacrifice. God did things in time that will never be repeated. God completed prophesies just as Jesus completed His sacrifice. No where in scripture does it say "continually offered". It says "once for all".
Hebrews 10:12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,
Jesus said "it is finished". He didn't say "it will be offered again and again".
Yes, we have a St. Joseph statue, our non-Catholic real estate agent swears by the practice. My wife and I are just like “this is so weird”. But I guess when you live in Baptist land you do as the Baptists do. :)
Thank you for doing the research and posting that here. Catholics obviously twist not only the words of scripture but the words of their church fathers as well.
Prots get bent out of shape about this, but it is okay for prots to refer to me as an *it*. Kind of hypocritical of them I would say and not a very good witness to Christ.
Word Origin and History for venerate - 1620s, from Latin veneratus, past participle of venerari "to reverence, worship"
This has been pointed out to you repeatedly, so --- assuming you have normal reading comprehension --- you know that.
We believe, having blessed it, as Jesus did with His disciples, it is, as He said, ‘this is my body’, ‘this is my blood’. And we covenant with Him.
If you're waiting for "verbatim", that ain't happenin' because no kind of verbatim proof exists. Nor has it been claimed.
What we'd be looking for, is evidence that something had its origins in Apostolic times, as indicated by the fact that the belief was widespread in the customs, prayers and practices of widely dispersed early Christian churches (Asia, Africa, Europe).
An example of this which ought to interest you, would be the belief that the authors of the four Gospels were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This is not in Scripture --- the earliest manuscripts for the Gospels are all anonymous --- thus the authorship of the Gospels is not part of the "Bible." But it was believed in the earliest churches in the Middle East and SW Asia, North Africa, Greece and Italy, etc. So we think this is not just some local preacher's opinion, but something which must have been transmitted to them during the Apostolic Age.
Likewise no one knows for sure who is the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, but Tradition holds it to be inspired Scripture because it was regarded as suitable for use in the Liturgy in ancient churches.
The usual rules of historiography apply here. Nothing woo-woo oracular or mystical, we just look at manuscripts, hymns, old lists, monuments and inscriptions, and above all, the actual customs and practices of the churches, and make reasonable inferences, usually from converging lines of evidence.
If you yourself accept the headings in your Bible about Matthew-Mark-Luke-John as authors of the Gospels, and "someone in Apostolic times" being the divinely-inspired author of the Epistle tot he Hebrews, then voila, you accept the results of our acceptance of Sacred Tradition.
When quoting the Bible, even when changing Bible verses for sarcasm, include the source chapter/verse.
Therefore Joseph Smith saw himself as restoring the ancient Church.
(Please correct me where I'm wrong, because I know only a little about Mormonism.)
LDS acceptance of large amounts of new Scripture, none of it previously attested to before the 19th century, places the LDS at variance with all of historic Christianity. And I think Mormons would thoughtfully accept that statement as a fact. Am I right?
And the original Latin "Deus," "God," referred to Zeus! Zeus-the-Father, in fact!
But that's not what Deus, translated as Theos (Greek), Gott (German), God (English), means throughout its usage in the Christian church.
Moving right along, let's agree that "venerate" has a different range of meanings from "adore" in current English-language Christian usage. It usually indicates (as Merriam-Webster lists as its first definition) "to regard with reverential respect or with admiring deference."
Examples:
Greeks venerate Homer as their first and greatest poet.
Americans venerate the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier by the placement of a wreath on patriotic holidays.
This is the flag from my father's coffin, when his remains were transported back from Vietnam. I have venerated it as long I can remember.
Enrico Caruso is venerated as one of the greatest operatic tenors of all time.
In none of these cases does not mean "adore." And never with reference to Saints, Angels, the Blessed Virgin Mary, relics, icons, shrines, cathedrals, or other holy persons, places, or things, does it mean "adore".
Regarding the Tomb of the Unknown or your father's flag...... people don't pray, appeal, place confidence in, hope for their salvation, assign false attributes or titles and everything else the rcc has done regarding Mary.
That's the difference where it crosses over to worship.
Not really...for reason that Arius was also arguing from standpoint of "tradition" and it was what is indicated in Scripture in wider and fuller considerations than Arius was relying upon (himself using just a few SOLO passages of scripture) which was basis for turning the tide once Athanasius presented his own (and his own bishop's) view.
It was not the Church of Rome who led the effort to correct the error.
Athanasius was not in any form under the bishop of Rome, but was (as hierarchy was structured at that time) under a bishop of Alexandria who himself was not *under* any other bishop, but himself himself occupying an Apostolic See considered equal with others of the Church...
If it had been an issue of hierarchical ranking and authority derived most chiefly in that manner, then what in the world was a young deacon of the Church at Alexandria doing leading the charge (so to speak). Athanasius contra mundus, et mundum contra Athanasium or "While the world is set against Athanasius, Athanasius is equally set against the world." For lurkers who may not be acquainted with this --- http://orthodoxwiki.org/Athanasius_of_Alexandria is where I just borrowed the more complete phrase (more complete than other expressions of it, made earlier on this thread).
That said, one of Athanasius's earliest and most influential supporters was a bishop from Spain who in turn helped influence a bishop of Rome to lend his own support to the cause of Athanasius and that man's Alexandrian bishop.
"Tradition" worked only to an extent or degree being that BOTH sides could lay claim to it in support of their own theological positions.
Best Scripture backing eventually won the contest -- or else we'd all be Arians(?), instead of today, the only ones who make 'Arian' sounding noises are Swedenborgians (and possibly Mormon's, by default) and such as Jehovah Witnesses at the higher levels of that religious organization (the run-of-the-mill JW likely as not does not understand the hows and why's of the differences -- and so could benefit from learning of more ancient history & tradition. I'll grant you that) and of course Muslims who among others denials of the Deity of this one we know as Jesus (and they often refer to as Isa) make it out to be that God created Jesus in the womb of Mary instead of conceiving (but without sexual intercourse) Jesus as real and actual Son of God --- the one and only Begotten Son --- as it is written.
One could try to convince Muslims by way of arguing from standpoint of Tradition --- yet I do believe it would be best to rely on Scripture foremost, and then add the follow-up of now traditional understanding.
The Gospel of John, chapter 24
27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.
What would be the definition/timer period of "Apostolic Times"?
I see what you did there. ;^')
But wouldn't be able to easily dig out and recount the conversation which led to that...
Jackfrost being whumped on
by Eostre goddess(?)
Many times many ways...
Happy Birthday
To We
The verse does not say, but now once in the end of the world has he appeared to demonstrate how He had put away sin from the foundation of the world, but it says, but now once in the end of the world has He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself...
Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
Mat 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Although Jesus didn't show up the first time with sin, he had to be able to bear our sin...And give his life...This couldn't be if he was Crucified from the foundation of the world...
To take a single verse in isolation and build a doctrine on it is false teaching...So to take that route, one can not just stop there...We must have been redeemed since the foundation of the world...The second Coming of Jesus has already happened since the foundation of the world...The Great White Throne Judgment has already taken place...
Why do they, I wonder, start and stop with the Crucifixion???
Do they leave off the dipsh?
Thank you for that explanation. It is not, however, correct with reference to the way Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and others regard Mary.
Let's look at each word in your objection:
Please consider well how asking for someone's intercession differs from worship. Intercession is always a secondary and dependent activity. When people asked (prayed to) Peter and Paul to cure people in the Acts of the Apostles, Peter and Paul made a point of saying that they did not cure people due to their own power or piety, but only through the power of Jesus Christ Our Lord. All of us must acknowledge that the One who blesses, heals, and saves, is God and not any mere human person. God does graciously involve human beings as cooperators: but that's what the OT and NT are all about.
First, none of the titles or attributes used in accordance with the dogmas of the Church, are false. (I know you would dispute this, but your opinion is not the point here.)
Second, The point is that the titles truly point to the splendid generosity of God, because He has done great things for His lowly handmaid. They are not "about" Mary, primarily, but "about" God and God's gifts to her. "Mother of God," for instance, does not say that Mary is God. It says that Jesus is God and Mary is His mother. "Blessed Virgin' means only that God blessed Mary, and that she was a virgin for His sake. Mary is like a canvas on which God has begun to sketch out just how magnificent His favors can be, for those whom He blesses.
These favors--- well, Eye has not seen, nor has ear heard, nor has the mind of man imagined what God has prepared for those who love Him. We all have things in store for us, greater than we have ever conceived of. And yet some --- as if spiritually envious --- won't even call Mary Blessed!
Third, some of the over-the-top invocations of Mary, especially, are in the category of mystical/devotional hyperbole or courtly poetry, which I've been discussing HERE (and follow the links)
This is neither doctrine nor dogma, and some of it would need to be squinted at for quite some time, and then heavily footnoted, to limit its application to a context where Mary=lowly handmaid (subject) and Jesus=King of Kings (sovereign and unique in every sense.) A lot of it is simply undefined.
Some stuff you run across on the Internet is even the product of heretical groups (e.g. the Mariavites, or --- wayy-y-y- over on the other end --- goddess-devotees.) I sat next to a New Age lady on an airplane, once, who was all a-flutter about Our Lady's supposed apparitions at Medjugorje. As it happens, neither New Age Squishty-ology nor, even, Medjugorje, is approved by the Catholic Church.
It is clear that one can distinguish between veneration and worship. Worship, above all, refers all things to God as Creator of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible, the Prime Mover and First Cause of all things, all of whose attributes are non-contingent and infinite. Veneration, in contrast, refers to honor of an infinitely lower sort: honor to fellow-creatures (as in "Honor thy father and thy mother" and "Give honor to whom honor is due.") As creatures, they are inherently secondary, contingent, dependent at every point on either the positive or the permissive Will of God.
If you keep the difference between veneration and adoration quite clear, it becomes more obvious how God-pleasing it is to honor His mother.
Getting The NUMBER and all that...
When the books are opened at the judgement, our names have to be in that book in order to gain entry into the kingdom of God.
You'll need to explain to the uninformed here that the MORMON concept of 'heaven' has 3 levels.
Most MORMONs will NOT even be on the level where God the Father will reside.
I think that Storm prepper and his buds here will be on Level Two with us Prots and Catholics.
Then can you explain the D&C's to the ignorant?
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.