Skip to comments.
Mary, Mother of God
The Sacred Page ^
| December 29, 2015
Posted on 12/31/2015 4:29:48 PM PST by NYer
January 1 is the Solemnity (Holy Day) of Mary, Mother of God. To call Mary the “Mother of God” must not be understood as a claim for Mary’s motherhood of divinity itself, but in the sense that Mary was mother of Jesus, who is truly God. The Council of Ephesus in 431—long before the schisms with the Eastern churches and the Protestants—proclaimed “Mother of God” a theologically correct title for Mary.
So far from being a cause of division, the common confession of Mary as “Mother of God” should unite all Christians, and distinguish Christian orthodoxy from various confusions of it, such as Arianism (the denial that Jesus was God) or Nestorianism (in which Mary mothers only the human nature of Jesus but not his whole person).
Two themes are present in the Readings for this Solemnity: (1) the person of Mary, and (2) the name of Jesus. Why the name of Jesus? Prior to the second Vatican Council, the octave day of Christmas was the Feast of the Holy Name, not Mary Mother of God. The legacy of that tradition can be seen in the choice of Readings for this Solemnity. (The Feast of the Holy Name was removed from the calendar after Vatican II; St. John Paul II restored it as an optional memorial on January 3. This year it is not observed in the U.S., because Epiphany falls on January 3.)
1. The First Reading is Numbers 6:22-27:
The LORD said to Moses:
“Speak to Aaron and his sons and tell them:
This is how you shall bless the Israelites.
Say to them:
The LORD bless you and keep you!
The LORD let his face shine upon
you, and be gracious to you!
The LORD look upon you kindly and
give you peace!
So shall they invoke my name upon the Israelites,
and I will bless them.”
This Solemnity is one of the very few times that the Book of Numbers is read on a Lord’s Day or Feast Day. Here’s a little background on the Book of Numbers:
The Book of Numbers is a little less neglected than Leviticus among modern Christian readers, if only because, unlike its predecessor, it combines its long lists of laws with a number of dramatic narratives about the rebellions of Israel against God in the wilderness, which create literary interest. The name “Numbers” is, perhaps, already off-putting for the modern reader—it derives from the Septuagint name Arithmoi, “Numbers”, referring to the two numberings or censuses, one each of the first and second generations in the Wilderness, that form the pillars of the literary structure of the book in chs. 1 and 26. The Hebrew name is bamidbar, “In the Wilderness,” which is an accurate description of the geographical and spiritual location of Israel throughout most of the narrative.
The Book of Numbers has a strong literary relationship with its neighbors in the Pentateuch. In many ways it corresponds with the Book of Exodus. Exodus begins with the people staying in Egypt (Exodus 1-13), then describes their journey to through the desert (Exodus 14-19), and ends with them stationary at Sinai (20-36). Numbers begins with the people staying at Sinai (Num 1-10), describes their journey through the desert (Num 11-25), and ends with them stationary on the Plains of Moab. Sinai and the Plains of Moab correspond: at each location the people will receive a covenant (see below on Deuteronomy). Furthermore, there are strong literary connections between the journeys through the Wilderness to and from Sinai (Ex 14-19; Num 11-25). Both these sections are dominated by accounts of the people of Israel “murmuring” (Heb. lôn), “rebelling” (Heb. mÄrÄh), or “striving” (Heb. rîb) against the LORD and/or Moses, together with Moses’ need for additional help to rule an unruly people (Ex 18; Num 11:16-39), and God’s miraculous provision for the people’s physical needs (Ex 15:22-17:7; Num 11:31-34; 20:1-13). This is evidence of careful literary artistry: the central Sinai Narrative (Exod 20–Num 10) is surrounded by the unruly behavior of the people wandering in the desert.
Numbers also has a close relationship with Leviticus. If Leviticus established a sacred “constitution” for the life of Israel, exhibiting a logical, systematic order concluded, like a good covenant document, with a listing of blessings and curses (Lev 26), Numbers is more like a list of “amendments” to the “constitution,” together with accounts of the historical circumstances that led to their enactment. And like the lists of amendments on many state and national constitutions, the laws have an ad hoc, circumstantial character, with little logical connection between successive “amendments.”
Finally, Numbers “sets the stage” for the Book of Deuteronomy, providing us the necessary information about Israel’s geographical and moral condition when they arrived at the “Plains of Moab opposite Jericho” in order to appreciate Moses’ extended homily and renewal of the covenant that he will deliver at this site in the final book of the Pentateuch.
The specific text we have in this First Reading is the famous Priestly Blessing of Numbers 6. The formula for blessing given to the priests involves the invocation of the Divine Name (YHWH) three times over the people of Israel.
A Brief Excursus on the Divine Name
“If they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say?” “God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM,” say … “I AM has sent me to you” (Ex 3:13-14). The revelation of the divine Name to Moses (Ex 3:13-15) is one of the most theologically significant passages of the Old Testament. By revealing himself as “I AM”, God distinguishes himself from the other gods of the nations, which “are not.” He is the only God who truly is. Furthermore, the name “I AM” stresses that God exists of himself; unlike all other beings he does not take his existence from some other cause. Later philosophical language will describe God as the one necessary being. While lacking technical philosophical language, the ancients did have the concept of self-existence: in Egyptian religion, the sun-god Amon-RÄ “came into being by himself” and all other beings took their existence from him. However, God reveals to Moses that it is He, the LORD—not Amon-RÄ or any other Egyptian god—who is the ground of being and the source of existence.
The actual word given to Israel to serve as the Name of God is spelled YHWH in the English equivalents of the Hebrew consonants. It is not the full phrase “I AM WHO I AM” but rather an archaic form of the Hebrew verb HYH, “to be,” with the meaning “HE IS.” Out of respect for the third commandment, Jews after the Babylonian exile (c. 597–537 BC) ceased to pronounce the divine name at all, but instead substituted the title “Lord,” in Hebrew adonai, in Greek kyrios. Thus the God of Israel is called ho kyrios, “the Lord” in the New Testament. This sheds light on the meaning of the phrase, “Jesus is Lord!” (Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 12:3).
The Hebrew language was written without vowels until around AD 700, when Jewish scribes developed a vowel-writing system. The form YHWH, however, was written with the vowels for adonai, the word Jews actually pronounced. The English translators of the King James Version did not understand this system, and in a few instances combined the Hebrew consonants of YHWH (called the tetragrammaton, lit. “the four letters”) with the Hebrew vowels of adonai to form the erroneous name “Jehovah.” Catholic tradition addresses God with neither the mistaken form “Jehovah” nor the ancient pronunciation “Yahweh,” but uses “LORD” to refer to the God of Israel, in keeping with the practice of Jesus and the Apostles. In most English Bibles, “LORD” in caps represents YHWH in the Hebrew text, while “Lord” in lower case represents the actual Hebrew word adonai.
The concept of “name” in Hebrew culture was of great significance. The “name” represented the essence of the person, and invoking the name made the person mystically present. Therefore, God will speak of the manifestation of his presence in the Temple as the “dwelling of his Name” in various places of the Old Testament.
The invocation of the Name of God over the people of Israel communicates God’s presence and Spirit to them at least a mediated way.
In post-exilic Judaism, the Divine Name (YHWH) was seldom if ever pronounced, except on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), when the High Priest would make atonement for the whole nation in the Holy of Holies, and then exit the Temple in order to bless the assembled people in the Temple courts. There, he would pronounce the blessing of Numbers 6, including the vocalization of the Divine Name. Every time the people would hear the Name pronounced, they would drop prostrate on the ground. This is recorded in Sirach:
Sir. 50:20 Then Simon came down, and lifted up his hands over the whole congregation of the sons of Israel, to pronounce the blessing of the Lord with his lips, and to glory in his name, and to glory in his name; 21 and they bowed down in worship a second time, to receive the blessing from the Most High.
Similar information is recorded in the Mishnah, the second-century AD collection of rabbinic tradition and teaching that become the basis of the legal system of modern Judaism. So in the Mishnah, tractate Yoma 3:8 and 6:2:
And [when the people heard the four letter Name] they answer after [the High Priest]: “Blessed be the Name of His glorious Kingdom forever and ever”. (M. Yoma 3:8)
Then, the priests and the people standing in the courtyard, when they heard the explicit Name from the mouth of the High Priest, would bend their knees, bow down and fall on their faces, and they would say, "Blessed be the Honored Name of His Sovereignty forever!" (M. Yoma 6:2)
We read this passage of Scripture in today’s liturgy for a variety of reasons.
First, we gather as God’s people around the world on this, the first day of the civil year, to ask from God his blessing upon us.
Second, we commemorate (in the Gospel) the circumcision and naming of Jesus. For us in the New Covenant, the Name of God continues to be a source of blessing and Divine Presence, but the name we are to use is no longer YHWH but “Jesus.” Jesus is God’s Name, the source of salvation. When Paul speaks to the Philippians about the Name of Jesus, he may have in mind the prostrations in the Temple at the Divine Name:
Phil. 2:10 At the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth …
It has never been the Christian tradition to pronounce the holy name “YHWH.” Jesus and the Apostles practiced the Jewish piety of substituting “Lord” (‘adonai, kyrios, dominus) for the pronunciation of the Name. For this reason, under the pontificate of Benedict XVI, the pronounced name “Yahweh” was removed from contemporary worship resources. The sect of the Jehovah’s Witnesses insist on the pronunciation of the Name, although their form of pronunciation is erroneous, and there is nothing in Christian tradition or the New Testament to encourage such a practice. For us, the saving name is now “Jesus,” and although full prostration at the pronunciation of the name of Jesus is impractical, Catholic piety dictates a bow of the head at the mention of the Holy Name.
2. The Second Reading is Galatians 4:4-7:
Brothers and sisters:
When the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son,
born of a woman, born under the law,
to ransom those under the law,
so that we might receive adoption as sons.
As proof that you are sons,
God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts,
crying out, “Abba, Father!”
So you are no longer a slave but a son,
and if a son then also an heir, through God.
This Reading has ties to the Gospel, which emphasizes Mary’s role in Christ’s birth (“born of a woman”) as well as Jesus and his family being obedient Jews, faithful to the Old Covenant in submitting to circumcision (“born under the law.”)
This Reading also reminds us that Jesus calls us to Divine sonship (or childhood, if gender neutrality is desired). Let’s not forget that this is unique to the Christian faith. Christianity—unlike Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Atheism—is a religion about becoming children of God. In Judaism, Divine childhood is metaphorical; in Islam, it is blasphemy. In Eastern religions, it is irrelevant, because God is not ultimately a personal being, but rather an impersonal force or essence that animates all or simply is All. Christianity alone holds out the possibility of familial intimacy with Creator as a son or daughter to a Father.
Let us also notice the close connection between the gift of the Holy Spirit and divine sonship. From a legal perspective, it is the New Covenant that makes us children of God; from an ontological perspective, it is the Spirit that makes us children. The sending of the Spirit “into our hearts,” as St. Paul says, is parallel to the inbreathing of the “breath of life” into the nostrils of Adam, causing him to become “a living being.” So we are revivified by the Holy Spirit, as Adam was brought to life at the dawn of time. Adam was king of the universe, as it says: “Have dominion over the over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth” (Gen 1:28). The word “dominion” (Heb radah) evokes the context of kingly rule: later it will be used of Solomon’s imperial reign (1 Kings 4:24; Ps 72:8; 110:2; 2 Chr 8:10). So the Holy Spirit makes us royalty in Christ: as St. Paul says, “no longer a slave but a son … also an heir, through God.” No longer a slave to what? Sin, death, and the devil. If we live controlled by lusts, in fear of death, and swayed by the suggestions of Satan, than we are still slaves. If we are free of these things, then we are walking in the Spirit, as children of God. This is a theme in the First Epistle of John, which is read during daily mass all through the Christmas season.
4. The Gospel is Luke 2:16-21:
The shepherds went in haste to Bethlehem and found Mary and Joseph,
and the infant lying in the manger.
When they saw this,
they made known the message
that had been told them about this child.
All who heard it were amazed
by what had been told them by the shepherds.
And Mary kept all these things,
reflecting on them in her heart.
Then the shepherds returned,
glorifying and praising God
for all they had heard and seen,
just as it had been told to them.
When eight days were completed for his circumcision,
he was named Jesus, the name given him by the angel
before he was conceived in the womb.
We note several things: Mary “kept all these things, reflecting on them in her heart.” This is not only an historical indication of where St. Luke is getting his information about these events (so John Paul II [in his Wednesday audience of Jan. 28, 1987] and the Catholic tradition generally), but also a model of the contemplative vocation to which all Christians are called. Especially during this Christmas season, up until the Baptism (Jan 13), we should carve out some time for quiet prayer, to meditate on the incredible events we celebrate and allow their meaning to sink into our hearts.
Then we see the shepherds “glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen …” This, too, describes the Christian’s vocation. Pope Francis in particular has been calling us to return to the aspect of praise and joy that characterizes the disciple of Jesus. Our faith is experiential, it is not just a philosophy. It is an encounter with a person. All of us should know what it means to come into contact with Jesus, to “hear and see” him. In his First Epistle (which we are reading right now in daily mass), St. John sounds much like the shepherds:
1John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life — 2 the life was made manifest, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was made manifest to us — 3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 And we are writing this that our joy may be complete.
Observe the connection in this passage with “seeing” and “hearing” and the culmination in proclamation and joy. This is what disciples of Jesus do: they experience Jesus and then proclaim in joy what they have encountered.
Finally, we see the naming of Jesus at his circumcision. Christians no longer practice circumcision, because Baptism is the “circumcision of the heart” promised by Moses that surpasses physical circumcision (cf. Deut 10:16; 30:6; Acts 2:37; Col 2:11-12). Yet at our Baptism, the “circumcision of our heart,” we still receive our Christian name.
The name given to Jesus is the Hebrew word y’shua, meaning “salvation.” In the Old Testament, we are more familiar with the name under the form “Joshua,” who was an important type of Christ. Just as Moses was unable to lead the people of Israel into the promised land, but Joshua did; so also Jesus is our New Joshua who takes us into the salvation to which Moses and his covenant could not lead us.
Salvation is now found in the Name of Jesus, because salvation means to enter into a relationship of childhood with God the Father. It’s not that other great religious leaders (Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius etc.) claimed to be able to lead us into divine childhood, but couldn’t. It’s that they did not even claim to be able to do so. Jesus is unique. So Jesus says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6). This is not arrogance. Jesus is the only great religious founder in human history to proclaim that God is a Father and we can become his children. This concept of divine filiation is at the heart of the Gospel. In a sense, it can be said to be the heart of the Gospel.
On this Solemnity, let us give thanks to God that he has, through Jesus, made a way for us to become his children and receive a new name which he has given us (see Rev 2:17). This intimate, personal relationship with God has been made possible by the cooperation of Mary, who became the mother of the one whose Name is Salvation.
TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; marymotherofgod
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 921-940, 941-960, 961-980 ... 2,541-2,555 next last
To: verga; Iscool
Last line post 769 direct quote cut an pasted with no changes or alterations: "Mary was not the mother of that celestial body...When Jesus' human body died, his spirit returned to heaven and his soul went to Hell; Abraham's Bosom..."
Aah, that temporary time which as Clement wrote of -- when Jesus went to Hades and preached to those under guard, under watch, as it were.
While we're at it, and this subject comes up again; the 'gates' of Hades did not prevail against the preaching, did they?
Regardless of much else, I suppose that all would agree that three days after crucifixion, death & burial in a borrowed tomb, He resurrected, in the flesh.
I would imagine He had his 'soul', and whatever it would be that would be his own 'spirit' too, all along & together, as one "whole" so to speak, during the, ah, voyaging to Hades (if that aspect of proceedings be included) and then at time of resurrection also, more assuredly, more undoubtedly.
But yet the body itself; which is otherwise said by *some* anyway, to be inseparable from the soul (see II. "BODY AND SOUL BUT TRULY ONE") may well enough had lain in repose until time of resurrection ---->if it be that Christ really did voyage to Hades (as Clement thought the scriptures indicated) and that (as I would conceive of it) was by His Spirit, or even perhaps spirit and soul together if one simply must be including contemplation for that aspect, that went and "preached" to those who were alive prior to the flood of Noah's time, it being difficult for myself to envision Christ wandering subterranean realms of Hades bodily, the body going exactly to the same 'place' as Spirit & soul during that three day time period between his own bodily death, and time of resurrection from the tomb (borrowed from Joseph of Arimathea).
The above paragraph notwithstanding that there is an entirely different way to interpret the NY scripture passages in which those such as Clement (for example) considered CHrist to have preached to those in 'Hades' as it were...
Still, I think I see now a point you may have been troubled over.
Why bother me with that?
Go search out the issue as you had more or less phrased it in the prior comment, if you truly desire to see what those ever so pesky, so-called 'Protestants' are talking about when otherwise distinction is made between what is one's soul -- and what is thought of (pun intended? -- it's rattling around in there somewhere) as (strictly lower case) 'spirit'.
941
posted on
01/05/2016 8:40:40 PM PST
by
BlueDragon
(TheHildbeast is so bad, purty near anybody should beat her. And that's saying something)
To: Arthur McGowan; Elsie
You still didn't explain how a woman could have a son who always existed.
[ahem]
That's just so pathetic and unresponsive, it constitutes total surrender on your part.
So, thanks for giving up!
942
posted on
01/05/2016 9:02:57 PM PST
by
BlueDragon
(TheHildbeast is so bad, purty near anybody should beat her. And that's saying something)
To: terycarl
To: BlueDragon
I don’t need to explain how a woman can have a son who always existed, because it’s totally irrelevant.
To: Arthur McGowan; Elsie
I don't need to explain how a woman can have a son who always existed, because it's totally irrelevant.
Then you have isolated the syllogism from the greater truths of the matter, when that same is applied narrowly & specifically to the relationship of Mary & Christ, thus rendering that syllogism to be irrelevant.
Enjoy the music. It's not saying what one may think, on first hearing of it...
945
posted on
01/05/2016 9:24:05 PM PST
by
BlueDragon
(TheHildbeast is so bad, purty near anybody should beat her. And that's saying something)
To: Mrs. Don-o
-l which you can get from Western North Carolina via Buckner Gap and Sam's Gap. We've got more gaps here than the Cumberlands. LOL. I was just going to ask, how many gaps have you got back there? Every place has its own natural beauty, East Tennessee, Davao City. I like it here, but it is hot, but not as hot as it was when I was in Vietnam. That was HOT. If you want to Google some nice things, look up Jack's Ridge, the Marco Polo Hotel, Paradise Island beach resort in Island Garden City of Samal, SM, (Shu Mart) in Ecoland, the Abreeza Mall. Tebow Cure Hispital, named after Tim Tebow, on JP Laurel Ave. Nice places.
946
posted on
01/05/2016 11:07:54 PM PST
by
Mark17
(Thank God I have Jesus, there's more wealth in my soul than acres of diamonds and mountains of gold)
To: Syncro
The Catholic Mary has turned into somebody that is not the Mary of the Bible. Thanks for all the facts from history. The former is what Scripture and the later testify to.
It should be kept in mind that my objection is not to Mary being honored as the holy chosen vessel to bring forth Christ, but to the excess ascriptions, appelations, exaltation, and adoration (and the manner of exegesis behind it), ascribed to the Catholic Mary, whether officially or by Catholics (with implicit sanction of authority). And which presumes that bowing down to a statute and attributing to the person it represent attributes and glory that are uniquely ascribed to God/Christ in Scripture, including the power to hear in Heaven incessant multitudinous mental prayers addressed to them from earth and respond to them, and imploring such for heavenly aid, would be understood and vindicated as merely being "hyperdulia," and not "latria" (which Rome states is the manner of adoration reserved for God).
As making that distinction itself is presumptuous, the Scriptures do not sanction religiously bowing down to any statue in supplication, nor supplies even one single prayer to anyone in Heaven but the Lord (crying "Abba, Father," Gal. 4:6; not "Mama, Mother"), nor in instructions on who to pray to ("our Father who art in Heaven," not "our Mother").
Note that many Catholic Marian attributions much parallel even that of Christ:
For in the the Catholic quest to almost deify Mary, it is taught by Catholics*,
-
as Christ was sinless, so Mary was;
-
as the Lord remained a virgin, so Mary;
-
as Christ was called the Son of God, indicating ontological oneness, so Mary is called the Mother of God (which easily infers the same, and is not the language of Scripture);
-
as the emphasis is upon Christ as the Creator through whom God (the Father) made all things, including Mary, so it is emphasized that uniquely âto her, Jesus owes His Precious Blood,â shed for the salvation of mankind, (the logic behind which can lead back to Eve);
-
as Catholics (adding error to error) believe Christ gave His "real" flesh and blood to be eaten, so it is emphasized that Mary gave Him this, being fashioned out of Mary's pure blood and even being âkneaded with the admixture of her virginal milk,â so that she can say, "Come and eat my bread, drink the wine I have prepared" (Prov. 9:5);
-
as Scripture declares that Christ suffered for our sins, so Mary is said to have done so also;
-
as Christ saves us from the condemnation and death resulting from the fault of Adam, so it is taught that man was condemned through the fault of Eve, the root of death, but that we are saved through the merits of Mary; who was the source of life for everyone.
-
as the Lord was bodily ascended into Heaven, so Mary also was;
-
as Christ is given all power in heaven and in earth, so Mary is âsurpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven.â
-
as Christ is the King of the saints and over all kings, (Rv. 15:3; 17:14; 19:16) so Mary is made Queen of Heaven and the greatest saint, and that âNext to God, she deserves the highest praise;â
-
as the Father made Christ Lord over all things, so Mary is enthroned (all other believers have to wait for their crowns) and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things;
-
as Christ is the express image of God, and highly exalted above all under the Father, having the primary position among all creation, so Mary is declared to be the greatest saint of all, and the first of all creatures, and as having a certain affinity with the Father, with a pre-eminent resemblance which she bears to the Father;
-
as Christ ever liveth to make intercession for the saints, so is Mary said to do so;
-
as all things come from the Father through the Son, so Mary is made to be the dispenser of all grace;
-
as Christ is given all power on Heaven and on earth, Mary is said to have (showing some restraint) âalmost unlimited power;â
-
as no man comes to the Father but through the Son, so it is taught that no one can come to the Son except through Mary in Heaven;
-
and as the Lord called souls to come to Him to be given life and salvation, so (in misappropriation of the words of Scripture) it is said of Mary, âHe that shall find me shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord;â âthat through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.â
-
And as Christ is given many titles of honor, so Mary also is, except that she is honored by Catholics with more titles than they give to the Lord Himself!
Mary was a holy, virtuous instrument of God, but of whom Scripture says relatively little, while holy fear ought to restrain ascribing positions, honor, glory and powers to a mortal that God has not revealed as given to them, and or are only revealed as being possessed by God Himself. But like as the Israelites made an instrument of God an object of worship, (Num. 21:8,9; 2Kg. 18:4) Catholics have magnified Mary far beyond what is written and warranted and even allowed, based on what is in Scripture.
In addition, although (technically) Mary is not to be worshiped in the same sense that God is worshiped, yet the distinctions between devotion to Mary and the worship of God are quite fine, and much due to the psychological appeal of a heavenly mother (especially among those for whom Scripture is not supreme), then the historical practice of Catholics has been to exalt Mary above that which is written. As the Catholic Encyclopedia states, "By the sixteenth century, as evidenced by the spiritual struggles of the Reformers, the image of Mary had largely eclipsed the centrality of Jesus Christ in the life of believers." (Robert C. Broderick, ed., The Catholic Encyclopedia, revised and updated; NY: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987, pp.32,33)
The practice of praying to departed saints and Mary was one that developed, helped by pagan influences, for Scripture provides no example of any believer praying to anyone in Heaven by the Lord, and reveals that doing otherwise was a practice of pagans, including to the âQueen of Heaven.â (Jer. 44:17,18,19,25).
The Catholic Encyclopedia speculates that a further reinforcement of Marian devotion, âwas derived from the cult of the angels, which, while pre-Christian in its origin, was heartily embraced by the faithful of the sub-Apostolic age. It seems to have been only as a sequel of some such development that men turned to implore the intercession of the Blessed Virgin. This at least is the common opinion among scholars, though it would perhaps be dangerous to speak too positively. Evidence regarding the popular practice of the early centuries is almost entirely lacking...,â (Catholic Encyclopedia > Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary) Yet, as expected, it imagines this practice came from the apostles and NT church, but which never exampled or instructed it, and instead showed that the believer has immediate access to God in the Divine Christ, (Heb. 10:19), who is the all sufficient and immediate intercessor between God (the Father) and man. (Heb. 2:17,18; 4:15,16) To the glory of God
947
posted on
01/06/2016 1:41:58 AM PST
by
daniel1212
( Turn to the Lord Jesus as a damned and destitute sinner+ trust Him to save you, then follow Him!)
To: terycarl; metmom
948
posted on
01/06/2016 1:49:54 AM PST
by
daniel1212
( Turn to the Lord Jesus as a damned and destitute sinner+ trust Him to save you, then follow Him!)
To: Elsie
Jeremias (Jeremiah) 1:5
Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and made thee a prophet unto the nations.
Love, O2
949
posted on
01/06/2016 2:51:20 AM PST
by
omegatoo
(You know you'll get your money's worth...become a monthly donor!)
To: BlueDragon
The same can be said for an alternative "phrase", or word ---Christotokus, which by itself denotes no inaccuracy. And what would "Mother of Jesus" tell anyone? That Mary gave birth to a son?
That would be remarkable to... no one.
The fact that Mary gave birth to the Second Person of the Trinity, in the Flesh of Jesus, is what makes the birth of Jesus remarkable. This is the significance of the title, "Mother of God." It points to the Incarnation.
950
posted on
01/06/2016 3:17:11 AM PST
by
St_Thomas_Aquinas
( Isaiah 22:22, Matthew 16:19, Revelation 3:7)
To: rwa265
This is about what Catholics are saying on this thread.
They are saying that GOD died on the cross and Mary conceived the second person of the Trinity.
It’s not what I believe that’s the topic and changing it to that isn’t going to address what Catholics are saying.
951
posted on
01/06/2016 3:35:44 AM PST
by
metmom
(...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
To: rwa265; Elsie
Matthew has only 23 verses in it. I don’t suppose you have another reference for it than Matthew 2:26?
952
posted on
01/06/2016 3:41:01 AM PST
by
metmom
(...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
To: rwa265; Elsie
953
posted on
01/06/2016 3:43:45 AM PST
by
metmom
(...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
To: terycarl; MamaB
Do you actually deny the authority of Jesus....WOW! No, we don't deny it. We deny the authority of CATHOLIC PRIESTS to forgive sin.
God will always forgive as He promised in 1 John 1:9. He doesn't do any of this nonsense of retaining sins.
954
posted on
01/06/2016 3:45:38 AM PST
by
metmom
(...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
To: BlueDragon
Absolute nonsense. There is no “larger truth” that can bend or alter the laws of logic. A syllogism is either formally valid or formally invalid. The TERMS in the syllogism have absolutely nothing to do with the FORMAL validity or invalidity of the syllogism.
Anyone who claims the authority to disregard logic is claiming the authority to contradict himself, and to contradict oneself is to murder one’s own intellect or soul, e.g., as when one commits perjury.
To: terycarl; lupie
Of course they subscribe to a catechism, unfortunately they all have their own....the Christian community itself declares that there are 30,000 to 40,000"denominations".... I can look in the phone book in my little town and find 30-40 various "denominations"...worldwide, has to be a bunch.
Worldwide. And just because there are different churches in different countries, do you really think that they all teach different interpretations of Scripture?
It doesn't ever occur to Catholics that not everyone can attend the SAME church every Sunday?
Right. And OK, now prove they all teach different theology, different interpretations of Scripture and that there's no other legitimate reason for them being separate denominations..
956
posted on
01/06/2016 4:01:49 AM PST
by
metmom
(...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
To: terycarl
IOW, Catholics can believe anything they want that’s not found in Scripture but non-Catholic Christians can’t, they have to prove that everything they believe is found specifically spelled out in a manner a Catholic approves of to be believed.
That’s a double standard for you.
957
posted on
01/06/2016 4:05:11 AM PST
by
metmom
(...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
To: terycarl
I will NEVER understand your leaving the true church, ..... Likely enough to be true, to your own detriment.
958
posted on
01/06/2016 4:06:25 AM PST
by
metmom
(...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
To: terycarl; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; BlueDragon; boatbums; caww; CynicalBear; daniel1212; ...
Which line in that diatribe would change one mind in the current discussion??? That "diatribe" as you call it, is copied and pasted out of the approved CATHOLIC Douay-Rheims Version of the Bible.
Is that what you think of the Scripture that you claim your church wrote and the translation of it they provided for Catholics?
959
posted on
01/06/2016 4:08:55 AM PST
by
metmom
(...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
To: The Cuban
You seem to have a grasp of logic.
Aw... shucks...
960
posted on
01/06/2016 4:34:44 AM PST
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 921-940, 941-960, 961-980 ... 2,541-2,555 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson