What Is The Brown Scapular

Eternal Life Blog ^ | August 29,2014 | Eternal life

[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:

Brown Scapular Catholic Propaganda

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.

[BeauBo]

“So what are you saying then? That relying on the Holy Spirit leads to that sort of behavior?”

Not necessarily, but as a method for establishing doctrine, it leaves the door open to to subjective error, or willful fraud. Clearly it did in the case cited (Reverend Jim Jones). Many false preachers or hucksters have made such claims.

I am saying that doctrines (interpretation) need to be objectively assessed against a consistent moral standard, and thoroughly analyzed intellectually.

Doctrine and practice are somewhat different, like the letter vs. the spirit of the law. Establishing doctrine requires great cautiousness to guard from error. In practice there is huge value to having absolute faith.

That is the big reason that I kind of regret getting into this whole thread - I don’t want to undermine anyone’s faith in their dogma (e.g. fundamentalism), if it is being helpful to them. I know that it is greatly helpful to many, and have met fine people who live holy lives as a result of their fundamentalist understanding of scripture.

I got caught up in highlighting the potential downsides of fundamentalism (closed-mindedness, bigotry, irrationality, cementing errors in interpretation), in defense of good religious people who practice with a brown scapula, or are moved to a relationship with Mary. Such views and practices comfort and strengthen many, and are helpful to them.

[CynicalBear]

I thought there was no assurance of salvation in Catholicism. Now we find out all they have to do is wear that? Talk about easy believeism!

[StormPrepper]

The entire Bible is the work of Prophets ...not some of them

Song of Solomon was not written by a prophet. Psalms wasn't either.

[StormPrepper]

>>There is truth in the Bible, but there is some errors also.<<

Show us one.

Three completely different accounts of Saul on the road in the book of Acts. Only one can be right.

[Springfield Reformer]

I am in agreement with your description.

That would be great, but I'm wondering if I just didn't 'splain myself very well.

You describe a process of investigation to interpret the deeper spiritual purpose of text, that on its literal surface seems problematic. To do that, you have to be open to the possibility that you do not already have a lock on ultimate truth (which is a common situation among fundamentalists).

First of all, yes, anyone coming to Scripture has to be in the position to learn something they didn't know before.  Like Paul says, we see now through a glass darkly.  However, that does not prohibit us from knowing true truth at some more elemental level.  For example, anyone familiar with the Ten Commandments would know not to commit adultery.  That's not a "deeper spiritual purpose."  That's just what the text says in plain language.  But if I then go to the Sermon on the Mount and realize, whoa, this applies even to my thought life?  Now I have some deeper digesting to do.

But the surface level truth and the deeper spiritual truth are both true in their respective domains.  Where these so-called contradictions typically come in is to deny the factual correctness of the surface truths, and that's where I have never be left without a solution using good textual analysis.  

For example, consider the following:

And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
(Matthew 5:1)

versus:

And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people out of all Judaea and Jerusalem, and from the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, which came to hear him, and to be healed of their diseases;
(Luke 6:17)

So was he on the mountain or in the plain?  Easily solved, if you are familiar with the Greek. The word the KJV renders as plain is πεδινός ("pedinos").  Pedinos does not necessarily describe a big open prairie.  It simply means a place level enough to get a good footing, which fits perfectly with Jesus positioning Himself in a level place where He could best deliver His sermon on the Mountain.

And in this particular example, I cannot think of a single "deeper" truth you could get to from that superficial literal truth.  I am sure Origen could make something of it.  He was very inventive that way.  For the rest of us, this is just helping us see Jesus doing His preaching.  There is no false dichotomy between surface facts and deeper spiritual truth.  

For example, it is universally accepted among all of us here on either side of the Tiber that Jesus literally, physically rose from the dead.  There is no doubt a kingdom's worth of spiritual treasure to derive from that fact, but the fact itself is literally true.

So yes, there are some truths of Scripture you have to have a lock on as being true, even though you may well be positioned to learn more about them.  One cannot be a Christian without believing Christian truth.  If that truth is always just out of reach, then there can be no such thing as a Christian.

Which gets me back to one of my big questions.  I am puzzled by your use of the term "fundamentalist."  I are one.  :)  I have been raised among them and have known them as a group for over half a century.  Yes, we do believe Christian truth, because that's what Christians do, they believe in Jesus.  But where you seem to think that stops the learning, that's the part I don't understand.  Millions of sermons over hundreds or thousands of years.  Why do all that if we were all in a condition of static knowledge?  It really makes no sense to me.  Of course we keep learning.  We build on what we do know.  But what God has given us we will confess as true, just as our prototype Peter did:

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
(Matthew 16:16-17)

If God Himself has made us see that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, on what premise could we ever deny that truth? It is God's gift to us, and we will not let go of it, or hide it under the bushel of uncertainty. No, we will shout it from the rooftops. It is true.  Jesus is the way, the Truth the Life, and no one comes to the Father except by Him.

I use the example of Biblical conflicts, Old Testament vs. New Testament and so on; simply to highlight the problems of such an approach to scripture, not to try to invalidate scripture.

As for the need to rightly divide the word of God, so that it is properly understood, of course that is correct.  One of my favorite examples is the preacher who randomly selected two passages.  The first said "Judas went out and hanged hisself." The second said, "Go thou and do likewise."  Preacher was never heard from again.  Just kidding. :) Yes, we need to hold each other to account.  The outliers create their little flurry but they don't ever get control of the sheep.  The sheep have one Shepherd, and they hear His voice, and won't go wandering off after a stranger. That's just how those sheep work.

But the undershepherds do have a responsibility to take good care of the flock they've been given.  When they come to figurative language, they have to recognize that and teach accordingly.  When they come to factual miracles, they can't shy away from them for fear of offending the current scientific orthodoxy.  A lot of people voted for Heliocentrism before they voted against it.  The fads of fallible man come and go:

For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
(1 Peter 1:24-25)

Peace,

SR

[CynicalBear]

>>Three completely different accounts of Saul on the road in the book of Acts. Only one can be right.<<

There are no contradictions or errors just different emphasis and perspective.

[StormPrepper]

>>There is truth in the Bible, but there is some errors also.<<

Show us one.

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

Ummm.... who's the father of Joseph? Want more?

[Springfield Reformer]

Psalm 22 is a clear prophecy of the crucifixion of Jesus and is used as such in the NT. That makes David a prophet, and by extension everything he contributed to the Psalms as the work of a prophet.

Prophecy is also misunderstood. It isn’t always about telling the future. It is forth-telling, speaking forth a message from God. To the extent the writers of Scripture were, as Peter says, moved by the Spirit of God to write what they did, they were engaged in prophetic ministry.

Peace,

SR

[CynicalBear]

Luke 3:23 When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli,

Do you not understand the words "as was supposed"? Would you "suppose" they all knew that He was the Son of God or would you "suppose" they just "assumed" He was the son of Joseph as would be normal? The "as was supposed" is clearly there to indicate the thoughts of most of the people which would be natural. Are you that desperate to try to conjure up errors in scripture?

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Like Didymus, I’ll believe it when I see it.

[Resettozero]

Ummm.... who's the father of Joseph? Want more?

Yes please. What are ALL of the inconsistencies that have solidified your belief that only bits and pieces of the Holy Bible, written in and written by The Holy Spirit of God, are factual and true.

Perhaps, if you do this work, someone here can become a non-believer in the veracity of the entire Holy Bible, the written Word of God just as you are. Think of that! New StormPrepper disciples on FR!

[StormPrepper]

There are no contradictions or errors just different emphasis and perspective.

lol And Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

One says they heard and didn't see. The next says they saw but didn't hear. The third says neither.

Two of those accounts are wrong. They are in error. They are mistaken. That's not a difference in perspective...two accounts are plain wrong.

You can't prop up a claim like "the Bible has no errors" with "the mistakes are just a matter of perspective".

[Springfield Reformer]

Your alleged problem concerning Joseph's fathers resolves easily, as a natural consequence of the law of Moses and typical genealogical practice in Israel at the time:

Moreover, in the genealogy, Heli is listed as the father of Joseph, who had 2 daughters. The first is Mary, and the other was Zebedee’s unnamed wife (Matthew 27:56; John 19:25). When there were no sons to preserve the inheritance in accordance with the Law of Moses (Numbers 27:1–11; Numbers 36:1–12), the husband would become the son upon marriage to keep up the family name. Therefore, Joseph, when he married Mary, became the son of Heli according to the Law of Moses and could legally be included in the genealogy.

Available here: https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/genealogy/whats-in-a-fathers-name/

These are trivial "discrepancies."  Anyone who actually studies the text and the background and works up a little legitimate sweat in trying to sort it out honestly is going to find zero substantial contradictions.

Peace,

SR

[Resettozero]

Like Didymus, I’ll believe it when I see it.

Oh, it's fixed! And working fine. Sorry you do not see how well the Free Republic Religion Forum is working now that it has been fixed to everyone's liking.

Much better now, in my opinion. A lovely forest now because of all the various trees.

[Resettozero]

You can't prop up a claim like "the Bible has no errors" with "the mistakes are just a matter of perspective".

One day yet you may learn that it wasn't the fault of the Word of God in the Holy Bible; it was your faulty eyes and ears all along.

But for now...

[StormPrepper]

Perhaps, if you do this work, someone here can become a non-believer in the veracity of the entire Holy Bible, the written Word of God just as you are.

The entire Bible is not the words of God. Song of Solomon was not written by a prophet and is not the word of God.

If your faith is centered around the infallibility of the Bible, then you don't have any faith to begin with.

Your faith should be in the infallibility and perfection of God Himself and His Son Jesus Christ. Nothing that man has touched will ever be perfect.

I would suggest that you stop treating the Bible like some magical talisman and look at it truthfully. It's a tool to help us learn about God. But it should never take the place of God.

Pray first. Read second.

[Resettozero]

lol And Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

Now THAT'S really clever!

Denial isn't just a...

THE NILE! You meant The Nile River in Africa!

That's good stuff!

LOLOLOLOTFLMYSBO!

[Resettozero]

The entire Bible is not the words of God.

Isn't the new and improved Free Republic Religion Forum just great now!

I can hear from all the various non-Christian religionists and cultists all around the world and beyond!

[CynicalBear]

>>Two of those accounts are wrong. They are in error. They are mistaken.<<

Prove it. Were you there?

[Elsie]

The Top Down structure is already in place.