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.

[Gamecock]

**Imitation scapulars will not hold the promise when you die.**

As if there isn’t enough angst among the FRoman Catholics, now they have to make sure that they are buying the genuine article, not some knock-off!

Better choose...wisely y’all!

[HossB86]

Often imitated, but NEVER duplicated, Rose Scapular Co. Scapulars are the highest quality, most durable, longest lasting Scapulars available! Beware of imitators! Generations sells ONLY Rose Scapular Co. Scapulars, never cheap knock-offs, with FREE SHIPPING.

You get all of these wonderful qualities...

But wait -- there's more!

With your order of genuine Rose Scapular Co. scapular, we'll include at NO extra cost (except for a small tithe to cover shipping and handling), a SECOND genuine Rose Scapular Co. scapular. Why take a chance on believing what God Almighty says about saving faith...you can never have too many, and you can never be too sure about your salvation!

Don't take a chance; buy yours... TODAY!

Hoss

[smvoice]

If you are not completely saved and satisfied, just return your Scapular at no cost to you. That’s right, we pay shipping and handling anywhere, from your door to purgatory and back, it’s on us. That’s how sure we are that you’ll love your Rose Scapular. Act now and we’ll include at no extra charge the Purgatory Snuggy. If you’re there, you might as well be comfortable. Call now...

[Resettozero]

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.

"Infallibility" is a religious word associated with the RCC magesterium and the RC pope. "Inerrant" is the word I used to characterize the written Word of God, the Bible.

The Bible perfectly reveals the manner of thinking that belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ, who is perfect and without sin. The Holy Bible, reveals the Mind of Christ to the believer in Lord Jesus Christ but not to the unbeliever...the one who doubts.

Children can discern and accept that which is causing you to pull back in disbelief regarding just Who wrote the Bible and what it is that is being revealed so wonderfully! It is the same Author Who is revealed to each Christian who believes without doubting in the Word of God, however that Word is expressed and made manifest. The Author, the Inspiration of the Holy Bible is the One known as Jesus of Nazareth.

Verily, I have told you.

[WVKayaker]

...95 thesis to the door.
thesisses.

Come on you guys... theses!

[Resettozero]

Come on you guys... theses!

Sounds so dirty and soiled, though.

[WVKayaker]

[Resettozero]

Pop-Tart and a fried egg for me in the morning.

(Yuk!)

[WVKayaker]

...working through purgatory!

[RnMomof7]

I used to have a real one,the good sister’s saw we were “enrolled” at our first communion.It would be a “vintage”scapula” now,real eBay material.

[bonfire]

they have High Hopes

[Resettozero]

Whoever or whatever they are...

[WVKayaker]

they have High Hopes...

[Springfield Reformer]

SR: 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:

 SP: This is a logical fallacy. You're arguing against the weaker point while ignoring the bigger and more glaring issue.

 The bigger point is, that if every word in the Bible has a single source, meaning God, there shouldn't be any discrepancy in the stories at all. God knows all and is perfect. Therefore, His word should be perfect always.

 Therefore, I can conclude that the Bible is not inerrant because there are flaws introduced by men.

No, that conclusion does not follow from the preceding information.  For one thing, you seem to have entirely dismissed the consensus definition of inerrancy and replaced it with a standard you have crafted entirely on your own.  To disprove what we believe inerrancy is, you have to work with our definition.  Otherwise, you are only preaching to yourself. Of course, you are free to do that, but don't expect us to be much interested in it.  

It's like my dad used to say: You can talk to yourself, and that's OK.  You can even argue with yourself, and you're still alright.  But when you start losing those arguments, that's when you know you are in real trouble. :)

Anyway, sorry, no, no fallacy in the two-genealogies solution for Joseph. Your so-called "bigger issue" looks to me like a "look over here" tactic.  We addressed your supposed contradiction by showing the text was both accurate and self-consistent across both Gospels. Since that is the basis of your "larger issue," you failed to show in this case the discrepancy required to prove the bigger issue.  If you wish to make your conclusion, you have to succeed in making the supporting premises work, and you have not done that.  There is therefore no reason for us to proceed to consideration of your conclusion.

BTW, as an attorney, I don't look for testimony from multiple eyewitnesses to match up perfectly to a casual reading.  In fact, if a good attorney sees that sort of "perfection," it is a red flag they are dealing with false testimony.  In real testimony, people color it with their own perspective of the event, their own vocabulary, and their own view of the world.  Getting and reconciling testimony from multiple sources gives the event a three-dimensional reality that is virtually impossible to fake. In such a context, most "discrepancies" are normally this kind of natural variance between individuals, not true discrepancies of fact.  Each is true, but reporting things in a slightly different breakdown of the sequence.  But taken as a whole, it is still the same sequence, and the right kind of so-called "discrepancies" actually help prove the truth of it..  

So the burden is on you to show to a certainty that no means of reconciling the multiple inputs is possible under any construction.  You have not met that burden, nor even moved the needle from the zero mark.   

Peace,

SR

 

[HossB86]

Call now...

The Magicsterium is standing by....

:D

Hoss

[Springfield Reformer]

You've proven my point for me. The fact that you have to go to another language to find your meaning, proves that the Bible as it is delivered today is not perfect and can't be read singly and lead the reader to the correct understanding.

False, as you are presenting a straw man fallacy. Actually two for the price of one:

1) No one is arguing that knowledge of language is unnecessary to understand language.  That is utter nonsense.

2) No one (except the KJV Onlyists) is arguing that every or any translation is inspired, not in the sense of the original writing, God-breathed.  I've done some amateur translating of my own.  I would never present that as inspired and authoritative except as verified against the original.  

The truth on the ground is that everyone who wants to know about God and sin and salvation in Jesus Christ can find it in the pages of Scripture in almost any translation you can imagine.  I've looked at the typical translation variances between many them, and have never found anything, not one thing, that substantially changed the message from the original.  Probably the biggest issues are some minor problems with semantic drift, where you have an old translation like the KJV using archaic expressions, or bigger problems like translations customized for a specific group, such as the NWT, which was crafted specifically to support the false prophet CT Russell (JWs).  But among the good translations, imperfect though they may be, the flawless original shines through so well that they are sufficient to present a person with the whole of the Gospel message, and everything they need to live godly lives, just as Paul said in 1 Timothy 3:14-17.   Nobody needs to know Greek to know what God is saying to a certainty.  

So it is a mistake to point to an implied dependency like language and extrapolate from that to the necessity of an alternate proposed revelation.  The testimony of the first revelation was that it was sufficient for the purposes intended, including knowing the fullness of the Gospel and the means of living godly, and if that assertion is true then no subsequent revelation can countermand it and those that purport to fill in missing "Gospel essentials" should be held as suspect, just as the early Gnostic writings rightly were, of issuing from antichrist spirits in the world.

Likewise it is a mistake to point to a relatively small and well know set of imperfections and suggest they defeat the entire purpose of knowing anything about the message in the original.  That is 1) a fallacy of appealing to extremes that are untrue, and 2) a fallacy of ignoring game-changing facts, such as the unstoppable power of God to get His message anywhere He wants to get it.

Peace,

SR

[daniel1212]

Also, that I feel sincerity and concern in your thinking which I admire, and which I believe reflect a Christian spirit.

It was sincerity concern, in the light of what is written.

We don’t have full agreement, and sometimes I believe that some of your points are unfair or descend a bit into ill will. But I fall prey to to the same shortcomings, so it is not difficult for me to forgive these, in light of what seems to me to be your basic goodness of character and intent.

The current Catholic Church catechism on the inerrancy of scripture is artfully vague.

Because V2 was artfully vague, being a comprise committee, with errors on both sides. The liberal side basically won, reflecting the majority of RCs, while Scripture treat itself differently than the way both sides do.

I don’t find it unusual that the Catholic Church has not been consistent concerning the inerrancy of scripture - we are talking about billions of people over many centuries.

Which admission or at least excuse, is anathema to the typical conservative RC, such as we normally deal with here.

y the same token, Protestant denominations have not been consistent.

Comparing one church (even with its diversity) with a multitude lumped together under one name due to not being in communion with Rome, has little worth. Comparing two peoples based upon their fundamental distinctive basis for the veracity of Truth claims would be far more meaningful.

Some Catholics have adopted a concept of absolute inerrancy, as have some Protestants, some Muslims, some Jews, etc.

But you only conveyed censure of Prot fund., thus it was fitting to invoked papal infallibists.

It can help many people, by giving them a firm feeling of certainty, which strengthens their resolve and commitment. It has a powerful effect in keeping an organization together over time, which itself has great value.

That was indeed what God conveyed in making Scripture the standard for obedience and est. Truth claims. And which the Lord did in quoting Scripture back at the devil, and to the Scribes and Pharisees, and to His disciples. And in referencing the Flood and Jonah etc. as literal.

But there are major downsides to adopting such a doctrine. Disintegration of the Christian community, even to the point of civil war, has occurred.

2,000 years ago an itinerant Preacher caused division because of His absolute Truth claims.

Bigotry and condemnation of essentially good things that don’t conform to a particular rigid interpretation can get carried to hurtful and destructive extremes.

Of course, but the liberal recourse is what you seem to prefer.

In some cases, your arguments supported non-literal interpretation of scripture... that there are some things that are to be applied always while others are not,

And just why are these inconsistent with being a fundamentalist? Again, just where did you get your ideas of evangelical fundamentalism from?

that reason and morality may temper explicit text,

Where and how did i express that?

In other instances, you didn’t refute a point itself, but instead criticized some historical Catholic doctrine or statement for doing the same thing.

For you infer you are a RC, which means your church is the alternative. My response to which is itself an refutation of that premise. In any case, any alternative you presented is as obscure as Scripture is under the approach that you seem to propose.

In my view, we are all ultimately in that same difficult position, and would be wise to be kind to each other, as our knowledge and comprehension improves over time.

That is good, but it seems like a warm body without much bones. There is no ill will, except against falsehoods.

[Religion Moderator]

Thank you for your support.

[Mark17]

I've heard that Catholics make the best Mormons.

And JW's ...(Most that show up at my door were former RC)

I know a JW here, who is a former RC. I told him he jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire. There are some RCs who went into the INC, a real pernicious, horrible, terrible cult, but I have never heard of an INC member becoming a catholic. For them, there is no danger of swimming the Tiber, because to them, the Tiber does not exist. There are some cults out there. 😇

[kalee]

What’s the INC?