Posted on 05/09/2015 7:44:31 AM PDT by RnMomof7
Millions of sincere Catholics wear the brown scapular thinking by doing so it will help them spiritually. They believed the report that Mary made and is backing a salvation promise in connection with the brown scapular hundreds of years ago based on their religious traditions. Over the years wearing the brown scapular has been perpetuated by sincere Catholic leaders, such as the one in this video, but it is in complete futility that it is worn. It is a false hope and a spiritual snare. 
It is not based on God’s truth and is, therefore, just as deadly for the sincere Catholic as it is for the Hindu who bathes in the Ganges River thinking his sins will be washed away in the water or for the Muslim who kisses the black stone of Kaaba to be forgiven! [The picture to the right is Mel Gibson, the director of the Passion of Christ, wearing a brown scapular as he smokes.]
I too once wore the brown scapular as an Ex Roman Catholic. I know what it is like to be taught something and accept it as truth to find out later it is not only unscriptural, but anti-scriptural. It hurts, but TRUTH is what we must stand on to be safe. It takes humility in such cases to turn.
NOTE: At about 2:23 time-wise into the video, the speaker is quoted below. How could anyone deny that Mary is deified in Catholicism? Surely, this rampant idolatry is grieving to the Lord Jesus Christ and God the Father. This is what Catholicism teaches about the brown scapular:
And so, wearing of the brown scapular reminds us, should remind us, of three things. First, that we are children of Mary. Second of all, that we need to work for our Lady. And finally, it should be a garment of humility and penance. First, by the brown scapular we profess ourselves to be children of Mary. The scapular of our Lady is a badge or a uniform so to speak by which we profess to whom we belong and who we serve. Likewise, our Lady in turn by wearing the brown scapular, she recognizes us as her children, as her special children. And because of that, she consequently protects us and watches over us. The brown scapular should also remind us that we need to work for our Lady because the scapular, which means shoulder garment, was originally that, it was a garment worn by religious in order to protect their habit, their religious habit that they wore on a daily basis during those periods of work to keep it from getting dirty, stained, from ripping, etc. and so therefore the scapular is a working garb. And so this should remind us that there’s no room for lazy piety. If we wear the brown scapular and we consider ourselves our Lady’s children, there’s no place for lazy piety but rather we should fill our lives with good works. This brown scapular should remind us the need to faithfully fulfill our daily duties, and to make another adaptation of Scripture, to labor as good soldiers of the Immaculate. Finally, the third place, the brown scapular is also a garment of humility and of penance. So in a spirit of penance, we should accept all the difficulties of our state of life and all the sufferings that our Lady may want to send us. And the scapular will give us the strength to do this. In all of our difficulties, we can always grab onto our brown scapular, remind ourselves of our Lady’s protection, her watchfulness, her presence and especially at the moment of death, when we can call to mind our Lady’s promise of salvation. Our Lady of Mount Carmel, pray for us.
* Not a single word about Jesus was mentioned there.
* The brown scapular is 100% religious mythology and idolatry, as Mary is deified as a type of Savior.
* No Bible light shines from such brown scapular Catholic tradition.
Lutheran followed the prevailing anti-Semitism of the Catholic Church:
www.shc.edu/theolibrary/resources/Timeline.htm
So are you seeking to establish censorship here, too, and pro-Catholic censorship in particular?
There are actually many reasons why evangelical Christians are troubled by Catholic doctrine.
Yes, the doctrine of your church says Catholics don’t worship Mary, so it is understandable how Catholics might believe they aren’t doing that, but words and deeds can be two different things. And, when we are talking about deeds that are more physical, like getting in water, or eating something, it’s a lot easier for everyone to tell if the deed is done or not. Worship, though, is in many ways not so physical.
Now, would you think it proper to call any other human than Mary, “our life, our sweetness, and our hope”? Why or why not? We who are born-again, evangelical Christians call Jesus “our life,” “our sweetness,” and “our hope,” and won’t call anyone else that.
Consider, too, that we know the Bible, and that from its beginning to its end, it speaks in the strongest terms of giving our worship only to God, and the New Testament writers wrote comprehensively about faith and the church and exalted only God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit).
The New Testament writers also deliberately, by guidance of the Holy Spirit, avoided almost all reference to Jesus’ human family, Mary included, as a lot of other information (like about Jesus’ earlier life and appearance) was also left out. If the Christian faith was to be so much about Mary, then the Church could have recorded and preserved something about the rest of her life.
What troubles evangelicals is that so many of the very things we do as worship of God, including how we behold Him, Catholics do towards Mary. And we are not creating our own idea of what worship is, but going by what God Himself has revealed in His Word.
So for the record, are you proposing censorship here, and in particular pro-Catholic censorship?
There are plenty of threads and posts that similarly criticize Protestants as “tax cheats”, if you want to look at it that way.
I read the thread comments after the post of yours in question was deleted, but from seeing so many posts that have gotten deleted here, I have my doubts that it was merely calling out something you see as a lie, and have to believe it was very likely more of a personal attack. And if you had addressed the actual reasons for why you considered something someone said to be untrue, then it was very unlikely your post would have been removed.
When the beliefs being talked about are our own and other’s personal beliefs, a sharp dividing line isn’t there in every way. And, it would be possible to try to legislate every imaginable scenario here and make a rule for it, but it would making posting near impossible.
The rules here make sense, for a forum that doesn’t adopt one particular Christian denomination’s viewpoint.
Open threads: Any beliefs can be criticized, but the criticism should be kept to discussing those beliefs. Comments that merely attack others are prohibited.
People of all beliefs do take jabs at each other while discussing the issues here, but if they are actually discussing the issues, and the jab isn’t particularly egregious (or if no one chooses to report it), the jab does remain. Often, it’s dealt with, though, by the person jabbed bringing it up to the person who made the remark.
I just wrote about the issue of worshipping Mary to someone else. This was part of my reply:
“””””””Yes, the doctrine of your church says Catholics don’t worship Mary, so it is understandable how Catholics might believe they aren’t doing that, but words and deeds can be two different things. And, when we are talking about deeds that are more physical, like getting in water, or eating something, it’s a lot easier for everyone to tell if the deed is done or not. Worship, though, is in many ways not so physical.
Now, would you think it proper to call any other human than Mary, “our life, our sweetness, and our hope”? Why or why not? We who are born-again, evangelical Christians call Jesus “our life,” “our sweetness,” and “our hope,” and won’t call anyone else that.
Consider, too, that we know the Bible, and that from its beginning to its end, it speaks in the strongest terms of giving our worship only to God, and the New Testament writers wrote comprehensively about faith and the church and exalted only God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit).
The New Testament writers also deliberately, by guidance of the Holy Spirit, avoided almost all reference to Jesus’ human family, Mary included, as a lot of other information (like about Jesus’ earlier life and appearance) was also left out. If the Christian faith was to be so much about Mary, then the Church could have recorded and preserved something about the rest of her life.
What troubles evangelicals is that so many of the very things we do as worship of God, including how we behold Him, Catholics do towards Mary. And we are not creating our own idea of what worship is, but going by what God Himself has revealed in His Word.”””””””
www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3287986/posts?page=343#343
There has also been, though, another discussion in this thread besides the one about the article, having to do with poster conduct. How people have been behaving is part of that.
And papertyger, you also wrote this comment in 143 that is still there:
“Or does someone have access to your rubber-stamp, maybe.”
Medieval interpreters of the Bible often treated Jesus’ parables as allegories ...
A major part of the problem with catholicism today...and possibly whatever you believe.
Concerning the many morally ambiguous items in scripture, which a doctrinaire, literal (Fundamentalist) reading would have to accept as divine will, you state that there is nothing in the New Testament to suggest that such practices should be reinstated, which again raises the point that you did not resolve. Do you reject the old testament?
You avoided addressing my previous point (saying “I have no reply” is no real reply - except to an extreme literalist, unconcerned with substance)- Is the Old Testament no longer scripture in your view? It explicitly prescribes rules concerning slavery practices. Jesus did not specifically address slavery in the New Testament, except to use cases of slavery to make other points, as I cited previously.
If you don't understand the OT and the NT and how they operate, I will not be able to make it clear to you. And from your postings I don't think I will.
Your position reminds me of a quote from Ron White.
I will no longer address your questions on this thread.
The New Testament writers also deliberately, by guidance of the Holy Spirit, avoided almost all reference to Jesus’ human family, Mary included, as a lot of other information (like about Jesus’ earlier life and appearance) was also left out. If the Christian faith was to be so much about Mary, then the Church could have recorded and preserved something about the rest of her life.
Over 350 posts now, and I have yet to see any RC give a rebuttal to the posts that have brought up the similarity of the wearing of the brown scapular with the wearing of occultic amulets and talismans. No response to your posts on the talismans used by Mormons.
I went to your links, by the way, VERY interesting! Not just brown scapulars, but rosary beads also? Wow.
Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.
Mary is NOT *mother of us all*. That is a Catholics fantasy that has NOTHING to do with the truth.
Spiritual mother.
And yes it is a lot like mormon underwear
That is why I posted this article ...
Luke 12:3 What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs.
Apparently, some RC posters love to scratch the scabs off healing FR sores...on Mothers Day.
Very unlikeable. And demanding of others but not themselves.
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.