An Example of Hyper Hyper Hyper Dulia?

[sandusky]

I don’t see the equal. They are not using the verb the same as you imply. At least according to the three references I have listed again. Who is your source that states they are the same?

Luke 1:28 uses a special conjugated form of “charitoo.” It uses “kecharitomene,” while Ephesians 1:6 uses “echaritosen,” which is a different form of the verb “charitoo.” Echaritosen means "he graced (bestowed grace.) Echaritosen signifies a momentary action, an action brought to pass. (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p.166.) Whereas, Kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle, shows a completeness with a with permanent result. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action (H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968 ) 108-109, sec 1852:b also Blass and DeBrunner p.175.

Same verb (as shown in blue), different tense:

The “prefixing,” and “suffixing,” are tense, voice, mood indicators.

Kecharitomene; to endow with grace—perfect, passive participle: ongoing result.

Echaritosen: to endow with grace—aorist, active, indicative: punctiliar; may be ongoing results, may not be ongoing results, the tense is not concerned with that.

Eph 2:8: "By grace you have been saved; sōdzō = to Save.

Sesōdzmenoi: to Save—perfect, passive, participle: ongoing result.

(notice the initial “consonant repetition” of both (Kec; Ses) indicating the “perfect”
and the men initial suffix indicating the participle, one singular, one plural).

 

[TriuneUnity]

I don’t see the equal. They are not using the verb the same as you imply. At least according to the three references I have listed again. Who is your source that states they are the same?

Luke 1:28 uses a special conjugated form of “charitoo.” It uses “kecharitomene,” while Ephesians 1:6 uses “echaritosen,” which is a different form of the verb “charitoo.” Echaritosen means "he graced (bestowed grace.) Echaritosen signifies a momentary action, an action brought to pass. (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p.166.) Whereas, Kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle, shows a completeness with a with permanent result. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action (H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968 ) 108-109, sec 1852:b also Blass and DeBrunner p.175.

In Greek, however, there is no way to jump from the perfect tense of a participle to the idea that the Greek indicates a perfection of grace. Greek participles derive their time element from the main verb of the sentence. The main emphasis of a participle is found in its aspect, a present participle providing the idea of continuing action, the aorist undefined action, and the perfect completed action with abiding results to the present.

We could take the perfect tense of the participle and take it as an intensive perfect, one that emphatically states that something is, but most likely it is simply emphasizing the certainty of the favor given, just as the perfect passive participle emphasizes the completedness of the action in Matt. 25:34 (“Come, you who are blessed by my Father…”); 1 Thess. 1:4 (“knowing, brethren beloved by God…”); and 2 Thess. 2:13 (“But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord…”). No one would argue that in Matt. 25:34, Jesus means to tell us that the righteous have a perfection of grace that indicates they had this perfection throughout their life. The application of Catholic argumentation about Luke 1:28 would result in untenable conclusions.

When Catholics use this line of reasoning with the Greek language in Luke 1:28 but not other passages they are not deriving their theology from the Greek, but the Greek from their theology.

 

[sandusky]

In Greek, however, there is no way to jump from the perfect tense of a participle to the idea that the Greek indicates a perfection of grace. Greek participles derive their time element from the main verb of the sentence. The main emphasis of a participle is found in its aspect, a present participle providing the idea of continuing action, the aorist undefined action, and the perfect completed action with abiding results to the present.

We could take the perfect tense of the participle and take it as an intensive perfect, one that emphatically states that something is, but most likely it is simply emphasizing the certainty of the favor given, just as the perfect passive participle emphasizes the completedness of the action in Matt. 25:34 (“Come, you who are blessed by my Father…”); 1 Thess. 1:4 (“knowing, brethren beloved by God…”); and 2 Thess. 2:13 (“But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord…”). No one would argue that in Matt. 25:34, Jesus means to tell us that the righteous have a perfection of grace that indicates they had this perfection throughout their life. The application of Catholic argumentation about Luke 1:28 would result in untenable conclusions.

When Catholics use this line of reasoning with the Greek language in Luke 1:28 but not other passages they are not deriving their theology from the Greek, but the Greek from their theology.

Yep; they back into it—start with Tradition, arrive, by any means, at proof.

 

[mark_a]

The following is a good reason of why Protestants find the Roman Catholic dogma of the intercession of Mary to be inherently dangerous and, in the example here, utterly blasphemous.

As a Catholic, I would not give this material to my kids and call it correct Catholic teaching.

And as a comparison, I also would not give them (at this point) “Theology of the Body”.

I also would not turn them loose on the “Focus on the Family” website for advice about birth control and auto-erotic activity.

 

[TriuneUnity]

As a Catholic, I would not give this material to my kids and call it correct Catholic teaching.

And as a comparison, I also would not give them (at this point) “Theology of the Body”.

I also would not turn them loose on the “Focus on the Family” website for advice about birth control and auto-erotic activity.

Ditto on Focus on the Family.

Why not Theology of the Body? Just out of curiosity?

 

[mark_a]

Ditto on Focus on the Family.

Why not Theology of the Body? Just out of curiosity?

As of now, they are age inappropriate.

 

[notsmart]

As of now, they are age inappropriate.

Is the Christopher West version better for them?

 

[TriuneUnity]

As of now, they are age inappropriate.

Ah okay.

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

Triune,

On Catholic Answers radio this afternoon, I believe it was Tim Staples, talked about the issue of using the word “woman” and Mary’s role as discussed earlier. Just as soon as I left the thread and started on my way home, I turned on the radio and Tim was talking about this very thing!

Peace…

MW

 

[TriuneUnity]

Triune,

On Catholic Answers radio this afternoon, I believe it was Tim Staples, talked about the issue of using the word “woman” and Mary’s role as discussed earlier. Just as soon as I left the thread and started on my way home, I turned on the radio and Tim was talking about this very thing!

Peace…

MW

That’s freaky LOL.

Maybe he reads CAF? lol

 

[TriuneUnity]

These are the same arguments that good ole’ Len from the Armstrong debate offered. It’s mere strawman tactics and rhetoric. Explain “specifically the exaltation of Mary” and any quotes from the book that speak of “God listens to her as if by command” and quotes that speak of “going to her is better than going to Christ”. You’re making assumptions and not quoting the material. Once you’ve done that, you can post quotes from the book that display the “idolatry”.

I already did post the quotes from the book.

You just fail to see it in front of your eyes. The ark of the OT “held” the sacred objects inside. Mary “held” the sacred Jesus, the Son of God. Pretty straight-forward. I don’t understand the confusion.

No, what I don’t agree with is the use of the typology. The Ark does not necessarily have any NT fulfillment.

Okay, that’s just an absurd statement. Read the passage:

Why do you think she said this to him - “They have no more wine”? Was she stating the obvious? What would be the point? Was she telling him to go to the local liquor store to get some? And then to top it off, Jesus acknowledges the request to perform the miracle, obeys his mother and she says “do whatever he tells you”. How are we to understand this passage, Triune?

So Mary knew intrinsically that Jesus could turn water into wine? Considering it is the first sign of His ministry, as John makes reference to, and that Mary in many other instances seems completely oblivious to the exact nature of Christ, it seems unlikely that she expected anything out of the ordinary to occur.

 

[notsmart]

So Mary knew intrinsically that Jesus could turn water into wine? Considering it is the first sign of His ministry, as John makes reference to, and that Mary in many other instances seems completely oblivious to the exact nature of Christ, it seems unlikely that she expected anything out of the ordinary to occur.

I think she trusted that he would make things work out. And, she never doubted it would not work out. She even bossed around the staff because she was confident the wedding would go as it should have. It went even better than it should have.

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

I already did post the quotes from the book.

Yes, but I was looking for the quotes to match your propositions.

Now what I don’t agree with is the use of the typology. The Ark does not necessarily haveo, any NT fulfillment.

I just think it’s typology, not necessarily a part of fulfillment.

So Mary knew intrinsically that Jesus could turn water into wine? Considering it is the first sign of His ministry, as John makes reference to, and that Mary in many other instances seems completely oblivious to the exact nature of Christ, it seems unlikely that she expected anything out of the ordinary to occur.

Her and Jospeh were told to name him Jesus because He would save Israel. She watched him grow up and be the perfect child. She watched him teaching in the temple at 12 yrs old. She knew who He was. Again - this doesn’t answer the logic I proposed earlier in regards to this. Please answer my questions and offer an alternative logic.

Peace…

MW

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

That’s freaky LOL.

Maybe he reads CAF? lol

I know, I know. It was really weird. I listen to CA radio every day on the way home. I actually really enjoy the Q and A show they have. It’s different people every time. I’m not Catholic, but I still enjoy it.

Peace…

MW

 

[TriuneUnity]

I know, I know. It was really weird. I listen to CA radio every day on the way home. I actually really enjoy the Q and A show they have. It’s different people every time. I’m not Catholic, but I still enjoy it.

Peace…

MW

I wouldn’t have known you weren’t! LOL

May I ask what you adhere to?

 

[sandusky]

Mystic Warrior:

It’s funny, but Martin Luther seemed to retain the Catholic beliefs about Mary. See HERE

While I am sure he would oppose the language used in the work before us, he certainly had no problem with the IC, perpetual virginity, assumption, etc.

Peace…

MW

To say that none of the Reformers was enamored of the Papacy would be an understatement; had any of the them been around when Pius XI, changed the doctrine of the IC to the dogma of the IC along with its dire pronouncements for speaking against it (which, IMO, amounts to changing the Gospel of Jesus Christ), and, had they witnessed the same Pope some years later declaring his predecessors, himself, and his successors infallible, I think you’d have heard a cacophony of protest from each of them.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The following is a good reason of why Protestants find the Roman Catholic dogma of the intercession of Mary to be inherently dangerous and, in the example here, utterly blasphemous.

Understood & appreciated ​

Now I know, I know, it will be defended according to all manner of apologetic attempts to justify this kind of theology in light of Scripture, or tradition, or magisterial decrees. But I would ask your consideration in order to better understand why we feel this must be utterly rejected. From St. Alphonsus Liguori’s The Glories of Mary:

Mary not only assists her beloved servants at death and encourages them, but she herself accompanies them to the tribunal seat of God. (p. 103)
With reason does an ancient writer call her “the only hope of sinners,” for by her help alone can we hope for the remission of sins. (p. 83)
He falls and is lost who has not recourse to Mary. (p. 94)
But now, if God is angry with a sinner, and Mary takes him under her protection, she withholds the avenging arm of her Son, and saves him. “And so,” continues the same saint, "no one can be found more fit for this office than Mary, who seizes the sword of divine justice with her own hands to prevent it from falling upon and punishing the sinner. (p. 124)
St. Anselm, to increase our confidence, adds, that “when we have recourse to this divine Mother, not only we may be sure of her protection, but that often we shall be heard more quickly, and be thus preserved, if we have recourse to Mary and call on her holy name, then we should be if we called on the name of Jesus our Saviour,” and the reason he gives for it is, “that to Jesus as a judge, it belongs also to punish; but mercy alone belongs to the Blessed Virgin as a patroness.” Meaning, that we more easily find salvation by having recourse to the Mother than by going to the Son. (p. 136-137)
And shall we scruple to ask her to save us, when “the way of salvation is open to none otherwise than through Mary.” (p. 169)
[St. Peter Damian] addresses her in these words: “All power is given to thee in heaven and on earth, and nothing is impossible to thee who canst raise those who are in despair to the hope of salvation.”(p. 180)
“At the command of Mary all obey - even God.” St. Bernardine fears not to utter this sentence, meaning, indeed, to say that God grants the prayers of Mary as if they were commands…Since the Mother, then, should have the same power as the Son, rightly has Jesus, who is omnipotent, made Mary also omnipotent; though, of course, it is always true that where the Son is omnipotent by nature, the Mother is only so by grace. (p. 181-182)
“Be comforted then, O you who fear,” will I say with St. Thomas of Villanova: “Breathe freely and take courage, O wretched sinners; this great Virgin, who is the Mother of your God and judge, is also the advocate of the whole human race; fit for this office, for she can do what she wills with God; most wise, for she knows all the means of appeasing him; universal, for she welcomes all, and refuses to defend no one.” (p. 198)
[Prayer of St. Ephraim:] O Immaculate Virgin, we are under thy protection…we beseech thee to prevent thy beloved Son, who is irritated by our sins, from abandoning us to the power of the devil. (p. 273)
The holy Church herself attributes to the merits of Mary’s faith the destruction of all heresies: “Rejoice, O Virgin Mary, for thou alone hast destroyed all heresies throughout the world.” (p. 566)

I think one must distinguish. One can say:​

• “Rejoice, O Virgin Mary, for thou alone hast destroyed all heresies throughout the world”
  truly, because she has done so by the grace of her Son. This, by contrast:
• “At the command of Mary all obey - even God”

• and this:

• “O Immaculate Virgin, we are under thy protection…we beseech thee to prevent thy beloved Son, who is irritated by our sins, from abandoning us to the power of the devil”
  STM to be explicable in part only; so as to be explicable wholly, only by being explained away; & for this reason: they can only be true at the expence of saying of God or Christ what is not true. The first quotation did not require that - it can be true without being true at the expence of Christ; whose Work it supposes, indeed, if it is to be true. So some sayings are more Christian - or more clearly so - than others.

Devotion - to Mary, or her Son, or to anything - can go bad; so can anything man touches. Equally, some objections are more just than others. Something must be allowed for context, & even for race: Italians & Syrians (for instance) do seem to be more emotional than Anglo-Saxons. Our racial character is part of what we are as human beings, so it will affect how we express our religious convictions. Sometimes the problem can be with the critic, simply because the critic too is human; all these variables, & others, have to be allowed for.

Newman discusses Marian difficulties & exaggerations at some length:

• newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/pusey/index.html
  Although devotional texts must not be simply identified as “what the Church teaches”, nor as theological texts (for the three things are not identical) it is still true that even a fair-minded critic of Catholic attitudes & words about her may be scandalised. In which case, we have to be patient with one another.

The saying “De Maria nunquam satis” is a very poor index of what is theologically appropriate or orthodox - but equally, the exuberance of language about her is no proof of the sin of idolatry; because the intention of the heart cannot be accurately gauged by anyone but the person who has it. The mistake is like supposing that because one is more emotional in loving one’s family than in loving God, one therefore loves God less than them - the conclusion does not follow. Hyperdulia is defined by its object - Mary - & not by the words or the emotion in or with which it is expressed

Horribly unbalanced ideas can be put forward in very sober language; & equally, language that is very generous & expansive is not proof of insobriety of doctrine. Like so many others, I trust St Alphonsus on this issue, because of his love of Christ, which makes his love of Mary look ***very ***tepid indeed We can go very very very very far in speaking of her, because there is no limit possible to praise of Him. And if this is overlooked, our tepid words about her can look blasphemous even when they are not.

Hope that helps

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

I wouldn’t have known you weren’t! LOL

May I ask what you adhere to?

LOL. I’m glad we could still keep our sense of humor here. You know even though we disagree you are still my sister At this point I attend an ELCA Lutheran church. Wonderful church - wonderful outreach to the community and wonderful pastor who is funny and approachable.

But, I have to say that for years I’ve been drawn to the CC, beginning in 2004. I’ve seen a priest, seen the RCIA director and went to mass a few times, but haven’t taken the plunge. I found out that entry into the CC was more difficult than I thought. I accept many of the dogmas, all of the Marian ones and love Catholic spirituality. I would be a great cafeteria Catholic, but that’s not me. I want to go all out if I convert.

Back in 2004 I had many reservations about Mother Mary. I argued against the devotions, but now have no problem with the dogmas. I had many of the same arguments that you have shown here. In the present day I pray the rosary when I go to sleep and feel close to Mary, but not in a worshipful way.

I look at it like this: I have two fathers - my wonderful dad and my Heavenly Father. I have my wonderful and beautiful earthly mother and I have Mother Mary in Heaven. I feel that I’ve not lost anything, but actually gained another beautiful person into my life by accepting Mary as my mother in Heaven.

While my earthly mother is far away, I ask Mother Mary to be with me and love me. I don’t worship her because that’s not what God wants and it’s not what she wants. She wants me to worship her divine Son.

Peace…

MW

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

To say that none of the Reformers was enamored of the Papacy would be an understatement; had any of the them been around when Pius XI, changed the doctrine of the IC to the dogma of the IC along with its dire pronouncements for speaking against it (which, IMO, amounts to changing the Gospel of Jesus Christ), and, had they witnessed the same Pope some years later declaring his predecessors, himself, and his successors infallible, I think you’d have heard a cacophony of protest from each of them.

Oh, I agree with you. He would not have agreed to the dogmas.

Peace…

MW

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The reason you’re not finding them is that link is a different edition of the book than what I am using. If you click on the link I provided it will give you the same edition I have and it will match up with the page numbers I quoted from.

I agree that it is probably farther than the average Catholic would take it as far as devotional life (although Liguori’s book received the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, so apparently, his bishop didn’t think it went too far).

Neither separately nor together do they indicate agreement with an author whose book receives them.​

Nihil Obstat = “Nothing is an obtacle to” [printing this text]
Imprimi Potest = “It is able to be printed”]
Imprimatur = “Let it be printed”

They are licenses, indicating a judgement by the censor that contain nothing contrary to faith or morals. Books containing different opinions are receive the the Nihil Obstat & Imprimatur, which would be impossible if these licenses indicated agreement with all the opinions expressed in all the books which receive them. So they are misunderstood if taken to indicate positive agreement with everything in the books they appear in.

But my point is that merely having a false doctrine like the intercession of Mary and the various dogmas that surround her, opens up the door for this kind of rank heresy.