Posted on 04/29/2017 8:02:13 AM PDT by NYer
As we pray for the success of Pope Francis’ trip to Egypt this weekend, a perfect prayer to use is the oldest known Marian prayer, which in fact, traces back to the pope’s host country.
The oldest known Marian prayer is found on an ancient Egyptian papyrus dating from around the year 250. Today known in the Church as the Sub tuum praesidium, the prayer is believed to have been part of the Coptic Vespers liturgy during the Christmas season.
The original prayer was written in Greek and according to Roseanne Sullivan, “The prayer is addressed to Our Lady using the Greek word Θεοτόκος, which is an adjectival form of Θεοφόρος (Theotokos, or God-bearer) and is more properly translated as ‘she whose offspring is God.'” This helps to prove that the early Christians were already familiar with the word “Theotokos” well before the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus ratified its usage.
Below can be found the original Greek text from the papyrus, along with an English translation as listed on the New Liturgical Movement website:
| On the papyrus, we can read: .ΠΟ ΕΥCΠΑ ΚΑΤΑΦΕ ΘΕΟΤΟΚΕΤ ΙΚΕCΙΑCΜΗΠΑ ΕΙΔΗCΕΜΠΕΡΙCTAC AΛΛΕΚΚΙΝΔΥΝΟΥ …ΡΥCΑΙΗΜΑC MONH …HEΥΛΟΓ |
And an English translation could be: Under your mercy we take refuge, Mother of God! Our prayers, do not despise in necessities, but from the danger deliver us, only pure, only blessed. |
More commonly the prayer is translated:
Beneath your compassion,
We take refuge, O Mother of God:
do not despise our petitions in time of trouble:
but rescue us from dangers,
only pure, only blessed one.
Several centuries later a Latin prayer was developed and is more widely known in the Roman Catholic Church:
| Latin Text Sub tuum praesidium confugimus, Sancta Dei Genetrix. Nostras deprecationes ne despicias in necessitatibus nostris, sed a periculis cunctis libera nos semper, Virgo gloriosa et benedicta |
English Text We fly to Thy protection, O Holy Mother of God; Do not despise our petitions in our necessities, but deliver us always from all dangers, O Glorious and Blessed Virgin. Amen. |
The prayer is currently part of the Byzantine, Roman and Ambrosian rites in the Catholic Church and is used specifically as a Marian antiphon after the conclusion of Compline outside of Lent (in the older form of the Roman breviary). It is also a common prayer that has stood the test of time and is a favorite of many Christians, and is the root of the popular devotional prayer, the Memorare.
Ah yes...the talking point that has been proven wrong on so many threads continues to be promulgated by the Catholic when they have no other argument.
But addressing the brown scapular specifically, what you're quoting needs to be interpreted in context, as cautioned to Catholics who misunderstand the scapular here, specifically addressing the quote you cite: "This must not be understood superstitiously or magically, but in light of Catholic teaching that perseverance in faith, hope and love are required for salvation. The scapular is a powerful reminder of this Christian obligation and of Mary's promise to help those consecrated to her obtain the grace of final perseverance." To elaborate, the Catholic Church classifies the scapular as a sacramental. A sacramental does not convey the grace of a sacrament and does not have salvific power in itself. The priviledges mentioned in the quote you cited depend on the wearer remaining in a state of grace--remaining under the protection of the "shield of faith" from Ephesians. The scapular protects faith. It is a reminder to reinforce faith, which is how it is similar to the clothing accessories mentioned in the Deuteronomy passage I referenced.
As for proper Biblical exegesis, if I were doing exegesis, I would be reviewing the rabbinical rules for exegesis, diagramming sentence structures and key words in Hebrew, discussing the authorship and audience of the passage, considering the literary and historical context, reviewing the history of the interpretation of the passage in commentaries and scholarly articles, etc. Simply referencing a footnote is not doing exegesis.
The analogy is valid because there is no Scriptural prohibition against asking for prayer requests from the deceased—a practice that dates to late Judaism and is alluded to in Revelation 5, where we see the deceased elders fielding the prayers of the saints; and because Mary being deceased is with God, and God being the eternal Creator of space and time does not have a problem fielding a billion requests a day—unlike me, as I’m still catching up on the thread between moments away from work.
Please do share your thoughts and I will catch up on them as I am able. I appreciate the conversation and wish God’s blessings on you and yours as well. By the way, I like Christian fantasy, too—used to hang around some Tolkien and Lewis scholars, have written a draft of a novel.
Yes, exactly: it is asking for prayers from our Mother (John 19:27).
Judas was taught by Jesus and he failed.
Read Psalm 1.
Probably wouldn't call it anything, since Webster isn't a commentator. Judging by some of the items highlighted in red there, I guess you think when Jesus gave the keys to Peter that implied worship of Peter.
Then why not a yes, or a no to a direct question?
I had to go searching for 198. After finding it MEGO (my eyes glazed over).
I'll not go digging around in further effort, where I would need read from in-between-lines in order to venture guess to answer a question for you, on your behalf.
If you want for us to play those kind of games, then you really should play it from your own end, too. Dig around through my own past comments in order to divine answers to the questions you have posed -- regarding a parable now still under discussion, and there you will find the answers you seek.
Nonetheless, I will offer this, food for thought as it were;
Abraham's bosum. Should that be taken entirely literally?
Perhaps better to ask oneself, should it HAVE TO be taken entirely literally, when what was being highlighted were conditions after death, either repose, and being comforted (while awaiting God's promises to come to yet fuller fruition) with the very one who God had promised He would make a nation, or else as in the instance of "the rich man" in the parable, a place of unbridgeable divide away from such comfort and repose -- a place of torment and suffering?
No need to write up and send to answer to what was a 'feeding time' sort of question, when here it is as dinner banquet where we're all lounging around, reaching to the food with our own hands. For the moment, all one need do further is not be sluggardly, and allow oneself be grieved by needing bring food from a dish, grasped by one's own hand, to their own mouth...
She is DEAD; and awaiting the last trump; as are millions of other Christians who sleep in their tombs.
". . .have you not read what God said to you, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead, but the living." (Matthew 22:31-32)
And yes, Rome assembled the Bible that Protestants use. Even translated it for them. Attacking Rome is cutting off the limb you're standing on.
That would be nice, I type as I reply to the 13 posts you pinged me. . .
AS soon as YOU produce one where ROME tells it's members NOT to 'worship' her!
Paragraph 6. Mary - Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church: "The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs. . . . This very special devotion . . . differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration."516" (Footnote Citing Lumen Gentium n. 66)
FAITHFUL HAVE FILIAL DEVOTION TO MARY, Pope John Paul II:
"When the faithful call upon Mary as "Mother of God" and contemplate in her the highest dignity conferred upon a creature, they are still not offering her a veneration equal to that of the divine Persons. There is an infinite distance between Marian veneration and worship of the Trinity and the Incarnate Word.
As a consequence, although the Christian community addresses the Blessed Virgin in language that sometimes recalls the terms used in the worship of God, it has a completely different meaning and value. Thus the love of the faithful for Mary differs from what they owe God: while the Lord must be loved above everything with all one's heart, with all one's soul and with all one's mind (cf. Mt 22:37), the sentiment joining Christians to the Blessed Virgin suggests, at a spiritual level, the affection of children for their mother."
There's two for you--you got an extra one as a bonus, since you gave me 13 posts to answer. Per your previous post to stick to one subject and per my employer, I'll stop there.
If we're living under the OT you may have an argument. But we're under the NT...at least Christians are...Roman Catholics I'm not sure sometimes. Further, the OT passage you reference doesn't make the claim made by the apparition so the appeal to the OT fails.
Also, look at the Levitical priestly clothing prescriptions and especially at the passages on the armor of God in Ephesians and Colossians. The scapular was called a "shield" centuries before the brown scapular was introduced, with reference to the "shield of faith" Paul mentions in Ephesians, a passage in turn referencing OT passages such as Isaiah 59:16-19.
When Paul mentions the shield of faith he doesn't mean an actual physical shield as this is the shield of faith.
His ultimate appeal though in this passage is to the Word of God. No mention of "tradition".
You've completely taken Isaiah out of context which is not unusual for a Catholic to do to justify their beliefs.
But addressing the brown scapular specifically, what you're quoting needs to be interpreted in context, as cautioned to Catholics who misunderstand the scapular here, specifically addressing the quote you cite: "This must not be understood superstitiously or magically, but in light of Catholic teaching that perseverance in faith, hope and love are required for salvation.
The Catholic tries to disguise this form of idolatry with a lot of qualifications. That should tell you you're on sinking sand.
However, the apparition didn't give those disclaimers when it made the statement.
A sacramental does not convey the grace of a sacrament and does not have salvific power in itself. The priviledges mentioned in the quote you cited depend on the wearer remaining in a state of grace--remaining under the protection of the "shield of faith" from Ephesians. The scapular protects faith. It is a reminder to reinforce faith, which is how it is similar to the clothing accessories mentioned in the Deuteronomy passage I referenced.
Again, the apparition did not give those disclaimers.
The clothing passages in Deuteronomy did not promise salvation from the hell-fire as the apparition did.
That's difference number one and in itself should be enough.
However, the Catholic seems to want to live under the OT Laws with the sacrifices and a priesthood that has to offer a sacrifice via the Mass. None of which is found in the NT.
We have nothing in the NT to suggest we should be wearing a piece of cloth to protect us from the hell-fire as told by the apparition.
The appeal to Deut for support of this fails.
As for proper Biblical exegesis, if I were doing exegesis, I would be reviewing the rabbinical rules for exegesis, diagramming sentence structures and key words in Hebrew, discussing the authorship and audience of the passage, considering the literary and historical context, reviewing the history of the interpretation of the passage in commentaries and scholarly articles, etc. Simply referencing a footnote is not doing exegesis.
Roman Catholicism has done none of this in consideration of the "promise" of the apparition. If it did it would have rejected this "promise" centuries ago.
I wish you a speedy recovery from the flu. I will catch up on your posts and do them more justice later. Please do realize that when you post so many long quotes and extensive links, it takes time to work through them all and address them adequately--I take them seriously so I take the time to look things up and pray over and review the Scriptures cited. I will mention that I did look at that Le Goff book on purgatory you cited last night and it was a useful reference--thank you for mentioning it. I will respond more later, God-willing.
It is rare for the Roman Catholic to identify as a Christian.
That would make for an interesting two question survey.
First question - What denomination are you?
Second question - Do you consider yourself to be a Christian?
Would Catholics answer yes to the second question in the same numbers as Methodists, or Lutherans, or non-denominational Christians?
As a Catholic apologist you believe Mary is in her body, with God the Father. Yes, GOD has no problem fielding a billion prayer request simultaneously, but it is merely the speculation of men that gives the Mother of Jesus that god-like power. You and I will never come to any agreement regarding such an assertion, so have nice day.
There’s a whole lot of speculation in your post....in addition to false teaching.
Thanks. "Faint, yet pursuing." (Judges 8:4)
Show me the infinite distance between Marian veneration and worship of the Trinity, btwn kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and ascribing glory and titles and attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them?
If this is invisible then how is a Cath to know when he/she has crossed that fine line between hyper "veneration" and worship? Don't you think there is a reason why the Holy Spirit never comes close to ascribing the supererogatory adulation and multiple ascriptions to any created being such as Catholic bestow upon Mary, thinking of her far, far above which is written? Egregious extrapolation at best..
Which includes, as,
• an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,
• whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,
• who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"
• and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain affinity with the Heavenly Father,"
• and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"
• for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"
• "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"
• so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."
• and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"
• for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"
• Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"
• and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"
• including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"
• whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"
• and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"
• and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation." Sources and more.
And in the the Catholic quest to almost deify Mary, it is taught by Catholics*,
As the the Son of God supernaturally, spiritually makes believing souls into children of God, Mary is said to be the mother of Christians in "supernatural and spiritual generation."
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 naturally infers the same, and is not the language of Scripture, which even clarifies Israel birthed Christ "according to the flesh, God blessed for ever": Rm. 9:4,5);
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 “to her, Jesus owes His Precious Blood,” 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 “kneaded with the admixture of her virginal milk,” 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 “surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven.”
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 “Next to God, she deserves the highest praise;”
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) “almost unlimited power;”
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, “He that shall find me shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord;” “that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.”
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!
As far as "we never give to Mary Latreia, therefore we do not worship her," there are more words than that which are used for worship, and can describe the manner of "veneration" that the Catholic Mary receives from many Catholics.
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.