Venezuelan Bishops Pray to Virgin Mary to Free the Country from the ‘Claws of Communism’

Breitbart ^ | 2 Aug 2017 | Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D.

[detective]

The Venezuelan Episcopal Conference (CEV) has publicly invoked the intercession of the Virgin Mary to free the nation “from the claws of communism,” in a clear reference to the regime of President Nicolás Maduro.

“Blessed Virgin, Mother of Coromoto, heavenly Patron of Venezuela, free our country from the claws of communism and socialism,” the CEV posted on Twitter this Sunday, complete with an image of Santa Maria and a Venezuelan flag.

[Fantasywriter]

Here are some further thoughts on the Greek word adelphos, brother. It’s all over the NT, and it’s translated ‘brother,’ in every instance except, I assume, by the Catholic Bible when referring to Jesus. But to posit that adelphos can mean ‘cousin,’ is simply sowing confusion. It can’t be used in this way in a general sense without leading to chaos.

Take the two examples below. We’re told that Andrew was Simon Peter’s brother, and that James and John are brothers—the sons of Zebedee. This is perfectly clear, and it all makes sense.

However, as soon as you start arguing—in total disregard of the etymology of the word, that ‘adelphos,’—that it can be translated ‘cousin,’ the following passages reduce to nonsense.

How, for instance, does it make sense that the cousins James and John were in the boat with their father, Zebedee? Since when do cousins have the same father?

Anyway, here are the examples. The word for ‘brother,’ in every case is ‘adelphos.’:

Matthew 4:18

 

18 Now as Jesus was walking by the Sea of Galilee, He saw two brothers, Simon who was called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen.

Matthew 4:21

 

21 Going on from there He saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and He called them.

[The chaos re Simon Peter and Andrew is this. If you translate ‘adelphos,’ as, ‘cousins,’ then you’re stuck with ‘cousins,’ for James and John. This is because the text says, “He saw two other adelphous,”. So whatever you used in vs 18, you have to stick with in 21, since these are two others of the same thing.]

[Fantasywriter]

There’s no direct citation for my prior post. It’s just two vss from Matthew coupled with a general knowledge of Greek. If a further citation is needed, let me know and I’ll try to find one.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Without doing a mile-long cut-and-paste in three colors, let me say the principal problem is:

• You see Mary as a wall, obstructing; we see her as a window, transparent.

• You put little to no emphasis on the Body of Christ; we put major emphasis on the Body of Christ, with all of us (and Mary first) as efficacious members.

Some say that after 1500 years of this, the Reformers were right to rip out all the "idolatrous" stained glass and smash the statuary.

I'd disagree. I'd say it's not that they couldn't stand idolatry, but that that they couldn't stand (or understand) the Incarnation.

The context of Mary is Christ. If you see the context, then you see that honor for Mary is certainly not idolatry. Mary the human person, the handmaid, the mortal, relying on God her Savior, is not an idol: she's an icon. A window.

It doesn't really matter whether this devotion unfurled full-flowered in the NT. It's prophesied in the OT, it takes nascent form in the NT, and it blossoms in the ages of the Church. Honoring Mary was part of the devotional life of Christians before the canon of the New Testament even existed.

---

"The LORD has chosen Zion;
he has desired her for his habitation."
Psalm 132:13

---

`

[aMorePerfectUnion]

WOW! Are you confused!

You see Mary as a wall, obstructing; we see her as a window, transparent.

Totally false. You put little to no emphasis on the Body of Christ; we put major emphasis on the Body of Christ, with all of us (and Mary first) as efficacious members.

Totally false.

What happened to "Just ask! Don't tell me what I believe!"?

[Mrs. Don-o]

You’ve made a just point about my saying “YOU see,” ,”YOU put little emphasis,” etc. I am guilty as charged! Sorry about that.

But let me follow up -— contritely-—by asking these questions:

In the context of Catholic devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, do you tend more to see Blessed Mary as a transparent window of prayers to God, or as a wall that blocks us/ detours us away from praying to God?

Do you see the Body of Christ as uniting the faithful on earth and in heaven in constant, effective, mutual love and prayer as “members of each other,” or do you tend to see all this stopping at death -— so one should not ask or expect an effective spiritual link (prayer) with the saints in Heaven?

This is your opportunity to set me straight!

Again I am sorry for writing generalizations instead of questions in my last post.

Good night and peace be with you.

[Elsie]

Any more rhetorical questions?

Uh; that was NOT rhetorical.

I was asking how YOU; a mere man; can judge such a magnificent mind as the pope's.

---

...I do have access the his speeches, his homilies, his exhortations and promulgations, promotions of heretics, demotions of orthodox Catholic prelates. I also avail myself of the traditional faith of my fathers. And the two don't jive.

Nothing you've said here is indicative of his FAITH at all.

Please don't mix your apples and your oranges.

[Elsie]

You see Mary as a wall, obstructing; we see her as a window, transparent.

I DO??

Isn't this known as MINDREADING?

I 'see' Mary (of the bible just as her relative Elizabeth did: "...mother of my Lord..."

Luke 1:43

[ebb tide]

Nothing you've said here is indicative of his FAITH at all.

It's not what I've said, it's what Bergolio has said:

... his speeches, his homilies, his exhortations and promulgations, promotions of heretics, demotions of orthodox Catholic prelates.

I'm surprised heretics attack criticism of a heretical Pope. Safety in numbers, perhaps?

[Elsie]

Mary the human person, the handmaid, the mortal, relying on God her Savior, is not an idol: she's an icon

Only SINNERS need a Savior.

[Elsie]

In the context of Catholic devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, do you tend more to see Blessed Mary as a transparent window of prayers to God, or as a wall that blocks us/ detours us away from praying to God?

Has Catholicism taught you this limitation of only TWO choices here?

I see Mary for what she was described as in the bible.

Nothing more; nothing less.

I don't have to send prayers out the window for GOD to hear them or to knock down a wall for them to get thru to Him.

---

Tell us what you believe:

Do you believe you HAVE to go thru Mary for your prayers to be received by the Father?

[ebb tide]

Why did Jesus Christ from His Cross state:

[26] When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. [27] After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own. John 19.

[Mrs. Don-o]

There are two ways to save someone from sinking into quicksand.

One, is to pull them out of the quicksand.

The other,is to prevent them from falling into it, (if, without your intervention, they would have fallen in.)

[Mrs. Don-o]

To hour question: no.

[Elsie]

Another Catholic argument; built solidly on sand.

[Elsie]

Then why waste your time and money?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

"This is your opportunity to set me straight!

Gladly.

Your phrasing of questions presumes a basis of truth that does not exist. There is only one basis of truth - God. Not what we feel, see, or wish.

For the believing Christian, everything he or she believes as true comes back to God Himself. What does He reveal, declare, teach?

In the context of Catholic devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, do you tend more to see Blessed Mary as a transparent window of prayers to God, or as a wall that blocks us/ detours us away from praying to God?

The believing Christian sees Mary as revealed by God in the Holy Scriptures. Out of all Jewish women, she was graced to bear Messiah. She was blessed *AMONG WOMEN* and not above women.

As such, God never reveals a role for Mary in prayer at all.

Not in prophecy in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Not in prophecy in the NT Scriptures.
Not by angelic words.
Not by the Son of God.
Not by the Apostles.

Ever.

She has no power to hear, repeat, nor put the motherly squeeze on Christ to bend Him to her will as a favor. It is all bogus. It is all made up out of pagan cloth.

What we "see" or prefer is irrelevant.

What God declares, reveals, and creates is everything to the believing Christian.

NOR could Mary ever be a block nor a wall in the believer's prayers to God. Neither is true to the believing Christian who looks to God for truth.

The believer has instant access to *boldly approach* the Father.
The believer has the Holy Spirit interceding for him or her - even when we do not know what to pray.
The believer has Christ as his or her Advocate before the throne of God the Father!

Mary is not a conduit of prayer - nor needed. Ever.

She would be a very cheap and worthless substitute for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit!

Anyone trying to substitute dear Mary as a "conduit of prayer" isn't a believer in what God has declared.

Do you see the Body of Christ as uniting the faithful on earth and in heaven in constant, effective, mutual love and prayer as “members of each other,” or do you tend to see all this stopping at death -— so one should not ask or expect an effective spiritual link (prayer) with the saints in Heaven?

All believers in the Savior of all time are united in *the Body of Christ" - which is His bride and church.

It is in Him that we are united (today) positionally. Someday, experientially.

That is different than to say they can talk, hear, respond, etc. in the present age. Scripture never says such a thing. Again, regardless of what we "see" or believe or desire to be true - and especially because we heard it from someone.

You will search the Scriptures in vain to find a place where an Apostle prayed to a departed saint, or taught believers to do so.

The doctrine you refer to was not Apostolic, but pagan. Lots of pagans pray to demigods or demigoddesses. As they entered Rome, they were given substitutes to use. Churches were built on their temples. Paganism was incorporated into Rome, as Ratzinger has stated.

Scripture also teaches a day will come that this barrier between the Church age on earth will end and departed saints and living saints will be in full communion as one body.

This will not surprise any student of the Scriptures. Today, believing saints on earth are enlivened by the life of Adam - which is fallen. Someday, after death or translation, the believer will leave behind the life of Adam and have only the life of Christ - sinless in nature, glorified with his Savior. Never-the-less, positionally, the saved believer is in Christ, risen in Christ, seated in the heavenlies in Christ. Experientially, he still has the life of Adam while on earth.

Kind regards.

[ravenwolf]

Ravenwolf, if you believe the Scriptures are God-breathed, then you must believe that words were chosen for a reason.

---

Other scholars say that adelphos is also used for cousin, uncle, nephew, or kinsmen.

I just have to go with what makes sense to me, and that is that Mary only had one child.

I get pretty leery when some one has to go into the word definition game to prove their point especially when they have to ignore so many other points.

For instance Jesus appointing John to care for Mary, if Mary had other children this would not have been the case.

[Fantasywriter]

Thank you for your reply. The reason people utilize Strong’s Concordance is because it is widely recognized as a dispositive source. The reason to look up a definition is to learn what a word means.

For example, if you or I grew up speaking English, we would know what the word,’brother,’ means. But if we didn’t grow up speaking Greek, we wouldn’t know what, ‘adelphos,’ means. The way to find out is to look the word up and study its meaning, its usage and its etymology.

There are two problems with translating, ‘adelphos,’ as cousin. First, no scholar outside of Catholicism acknowledges this ‘alternate,’ meaning. (I say this as a person who pursued the meaning and usage of, ‘adelphos,’ extensively a few years ago. More on that below.) Second, Greek has a word for cousin—and even differentiates between male and female cousins. Why would the word for brother be used to mean cousin, when there is a common and often-used Greek word that specifically means cousin?

Here is a little background that may prove useful. I studied Greek for two years, and retain some of my better study tools. In those two years, it was never mentioned that A, ‘adelphos,’ could mean anything other than brother, or B, that Greek lacked a word for cousin. In fact, we were impressed with the extreme precision of Koine Greek, and its fundamental characteristic of expressing meaning with clarity and accuracy.

Later, on the FR religion forum, I read that,’adelphos,’ is used to mean, ‘cousin,’ because the Greek lacked such a word. At first I just accepted that, odd as it sounded. Then one day I decided to research it.

Imagine my shock. Not only is there a Greek word for, ‘cousin,’ but it’s actually used in the NT. I was amazed.

I posted my findings...which were received with deafening silence. No one cared about it at all.

But I continued to ponder it. Ravenwolf, it comes down to this. Does the Holy Spirit desire to communicate clearly, or does He purposefully sow confusion? If the Holy Spirit had wanted to state that Jesus had cousins, that word was available. As soon as it was used, we would all know exactly what was meant. There would be simple clarity right there in the text.

But to bypass the word for, ‘cousin,’ and use the word which everyone except Catholics translates as, ‘brother,’ ... why? Just to mislead people? Just to create questions, ambiguity and confusion? God has never treated us that way. He is the One who created language, and He uses it to communicate, not to mislead.

As to why Jesus entrusted His mother to John, the answer may not be all that perplexing. John was there, as was Mary. There is no indication that Jesus’ brothers were present. If Jesus wanted His mother to be cared for by someone who loved Him enough to endure—with Mary—the shame and agony of watching Him die, who are we to question Him? Jesus had earlier said plainly, His mother and brothers are those who hear His words and observe them. How would this not make John more of a brother than mere genetics? Jesus was never impressed by genetics. When the Jews told Him they were descendants of Abraham, Jesus said God could make rocks/stones into descendants of Abraham. If, because John was the, “disciple whom He loved,” He wanted His mother to be cared for by Him, that is the Lord’s decision. It is anything but proof that He had no brothers.

[Fantasywriter]

I need to clarify something. Namely, the comment that only Catholics define,’adelphos,’ as meaning, ‘cousin.’ This is not to disparage Catholics or their scholarship. Rather, it is an argument on the basis of vested interest.

Put another way, there is only one faith tradition [that I know of; I wouldn’t, however, know about Eastern Orthodox] that embraces a doctrine of perpetual virginity. Yet that doctrine disintegrates if Jesus had brothers.

Tge bottom line being that the vested interest angle matters. If there is only—or even mainly—one faith tradition that espouses perpetual virginity, and only one major faith tradition that says, ‘adelphos,’ can mean, ‘cousin,’—and those two entities are one and the same, a conflict of interest is not out of the question. Rather, it’s a legitimate point of inquiry.

Of course if you can identify any broadly recognized non-Catholic scholars of note who also give, ‘cousin,’ as one meaning of, ‘adelphos,’ the point is neutralized. I haven’t found any, but I’d look into any you might turn up. That’s only right.

[Resettozero]

If any reader of this thread were interested in knowing the truth of this matter, praying to the one-and-only perpetual-virgin Mary Mother of Jesus to free Venezuela from the claws of communism, he would accept posts 836 and 838 as factual and true.

Determining what is true cannot be the goal of FR’s RCC-vested religionists by virtue of their repeated posted aversions to trustworthy information offered to them by those they look down on, for a variety of listed reasons. They prayer the prayer of the Pharisee. They pray to themselves even while doing their good deeds here on FR. Their genre of religion cannot save them from the wrath to come and cannot dissuade any Christian who knows the Heavenly Father via acceptance of His only begotten Son: The Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Thank you both for posting on this non-caucus thread.