Hail Holy Queen

[justasking4]

guanophore;2822766]It has been present since before recorded history, ja4. God ordained these things before the beginning of time,and as long as there has been recorded history, we can look back and see it. The earliest reference we have to Mary we find in Genesis,

Here is what the New American Bible says about this passage:
15] He will strike . . . at his heel: since the antecedent for he and his is the collective noun offspring, i.e., all the descendants of the woman, a more exact rendering of the sacred writer’s words would be, “They will strike . . . at their heels.” However, later theology saw in this passage more than unending hostility between snakes and men. The serpent was regarded as the devil (Wisdom 2:24; John 8:44; Rev 12:9; 20:2), whose eventual defeat seems implied in the contrast between head and heel. Because “the Son of God appeared that he might destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8), the passage can be understood as the first promise of a Redeemer for fallen mankind. The woman’s offspring then is primarily Jesus Christ.

As you can see from this and the text itself it is about Christ. Even though Mary is the final “seed” she is not the subject here nor does she have any power to overcome the evil one.

where we find the Protoevangelium.

You know this was a false gospel and has no apostolic authority and is worthless in terms of spiritual truth.

From that day until this, we can see the role of Mary in God’s plan of salvation.

She is not even mentioned in Genesis or the rest of the OT in regards to the defeat of evil and satan.

There is no need for you to concern yourself about this, though. You have Jesus, and He is all you need. And you know all you need to know from the Bible. So, don’t stress!

Thanks for your concern—

 

[guanophore]

Here is what the New American Bible says about this passage:
15] He will strike . . . at his heel: since the antecedent for he and his is the collective noun offspring, i.e., all the descendants of the woman, a more exact rendering of the sacred writer’s words would be, “They will strike . . . at their heels.” However, later theology saw in this passage more than unending hostility between snakes and men. The serpent was regarded as the devil (Wisdom 2:24; John 8:44; Rev 12:9; 20:2), whose eventual defeat seems implied in the contrast between head and heel. Because “the Son of God appeared that he might destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8), the passage can be understood as the first promise of a Redeemer for fallen mankind. The woman’s offspring then is primarily Jesus Christ.

As you can see from this and the text itself it is about Christ. Even though Mary is the final “seed” she is not the subject here nor does she have any power to overcome the evil one.

None of us have any power to overcome the evil one in ourselves. It is Christ, and the work He did on the cross, and our participation in His death and resurrection through baptism that enables us to have power over the devil. Are you suggesting that Mary is not 'in Christ"? that she is not “saved”? Are you suggesting that the evil one has power over her?

She is not even mentioned in Genesis or the rest of the OT in regards to the defeat of evil and satan. You know this was a false gospel and has no apostolic authority and is worthless in terms of spiritual truth.

Ok. So, you are going to erase what was said in Genesis, because more was not said?

I am not speaking of the book, the Protoevangelium of James, but of the “first gospel” in Genesis. The fact that the book called the P of J from the first century did not make it into the canon does not make it “worthless”. It is an important historical document that teaches us some of the common thinking of the day.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It is one thing to sing a great hymn to God and another to pray to the highest saint in the church. Big difference.

No dispute on that score…

However, not one word of Amazing Grace is spoken to God.

Amazing Grace

"Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me…
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now, I see.

T’was Grace that taught…
my heart to fear.
And Grace, my fears relieved.
How precious did that Grace appear…
the hour I first believed.

Through many dangers, toils and snares…
we have already come.
T’was Grace that brought us safe thus far…
and Grace will lead us home.

The Lord has promised good to me…
His word my hope secures.
He will my shield and portion be…
as long as life endures.

When we’ve been here ten thousand years…
bright shining as the sun.
We’ve no less days to sing God’s praise…
then when we’ve first begun.

"Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me…
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now, I see.

There’s a lot in there ABOUT God, what He’s done, etc., but nothing spoken to or in praise or worship OF God.

In this horserace, my money is on the Hail Mary as the more effective prayer.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You know this was a false gospel and has no apostolic authority and is worthless in terms of spiritual truth.

Genesis 3:15 is referred to as the Protoevangelium and should not be confused with the Protoevangelium of James which, while not inspired, does reflect the beliefs and teachings of the Early Christian Church.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;2822954]None of us have any power to overcome the evil one in ourselves. It is Christ, and the work He did on the cross, and our participation in His death and resurrection through baptism that enables us to have power over the devil. Are you suggesting that Mary is not 'in Christ"? that she is not “saved”?

No.

Are you suggesting that the evil one has power over her?

The scriptures don’t say specifically but we can make a general case that is true of all men that the evil one can influence even Christians to do evil.

Ok. So, you are going to erase what was said in Genesis, because more was not said?

We should only go by what is written. No more, no less.

I am not speaking of the book, the Protoevangelium of James, but of the “first gospel” in Genesis. The fact that the book called the P of J from the first century did not make it into the canon does not make it “worthless”. It is an important historical document that teaches us some of the common thinking of the day.

Evidently the early church was concerned enough to condemn it as a false gospel. If true i could understand why since it taught things that were not true.
I agree with your historical comment.

 

[Randy_Carson]

We should only go by what is written. No more, no less.

Where does the Bible teach us that we should ignore that which is taught by the Church which is the “pillar and foundation of the truth”?

And whose interpretation of what is written? Yours? Or that of the Church founded by Christ and led by the Spirit into all truth?

Neither Jesus nor the Apostles practiced sola scriptura - it is a “tradition of Protestant men.”

 

[justasking4]

Genesis 3:15 is referred to as the Protoevangelium and should not be confused with the Protoevangelium of James which, while not inspired, does reflect the beliefs and teachings of the Early Christian Church.

If these reflect beliefs of the early christian church then you have a gnostic church. Both these works were condemned by the church as being false gospels that would lead people astray.

 

[justasking4]

Randy Carson;2823089]Where does the Bible teach us that we should ignore that which is taught by the Church which is the “pillar and foundation of the truth”?

The scriptures warn that false teachers would come into the church itself and decieve many. How does a catholic go about applying this principle in their church today?

And whose interpretation of what is written? Yours? Or that of the Church founded by Christ and led by the Spirit into all truth?

I don’t see how it can be the catholic church since they have only defined infallibly a few verses. Since that is the case, how do you determine the correct and catholic interpretation of a passage that your church has never interpreted?

Neither Jesus nor the Apostles practiced sola scriptura - it is a “tradition of Protestant men.”

What is your definition of tradition?

 

[guanophore]

The scriptures don’t say specifically but we can make a general case that is true of all men that the evil one can influence even Christians to do evil.

I don’t know about you, but since no evil is permitted in heaven, I think it is pretty safe to say that anyone there is beyond the reach of the evil one.

We should only go by what is written. No more, no less.

Where is THAT in your bible?

Evidently the early church was concerned enough to condemn it as a false gospel. If true i could understand why since it taught things that were not true.

Where do you think the Church did this?

I think you are confused between writings that are inspired, and writings that are not. It does not mean that they have no truth in them, or that they have no value. There are many texts that were in use in the Church before the canon was closed that are of spiritual value.

If these reflect beliefs of the early christian church then you have a gnostic church. Both these works were condemned by the church as being false gospels that would lead people astray.

You are confused, ja4. Genesis was not condemned by the Church. The Protoevangelium of James reflect beliefs that were germaine to the time.

 

[guanophore]

The scriptures warn that false teachers would come into the church itself and decieve many. How does a catholic go about applying this principle in their church today?

You have asked this question over and over, ja4, and you keep getting the same answer. Therefore the reader must conclude:

You don’t like the answer, so you are fishing for a different one

You don’t read the answers because you really are not interested in the responses

You are asking in a disingenuous manner.

Personally, I think it is the last one. I know now that you are not here to learn anything. you have stated clearly that you believe that error has crept into the Church, and that Catholics are blindly and inappropriately following leadership that has gone astray.

I think your goal is to try to get people who are weak in their faith to fall for your Sola Scriptura doctrine, and leave Catholicism, because you see it as a non-biblically based religion, full of false teachings.

I don’t see how it can be the catholic church since they have only defined infallibly a few verses. Since that is the case, how do you determine the correct and catholic interpretation of a passage that your church has never interpreted?

Here is that same old tired strawman. You just cannot wrap your mind around the fact that the Church is based on the Teachings of Jesus, instead of the Bible.

What is your definition of tradition?

Since you reject the Catholic Tradition categorically as speculations of men, does it really matter?

 

[Randy_Carson]

The scriptures warn that false teachers would come into the church itself and decieve many. How does a catholic go about applying this principle in their church today?

We start by ignoring Protestants who try to convince us that the Catholic Church is in error!

I don’t see how it can be the catholic church since they have only defined infallibly a few verses. Since that is the case, how do you determine the correct and catholic interpretation of a passage that your church has never interpreted?

Through the doctrines that are based upon the Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition.

Are you suggesting that you have properly interpreted more than these six or seven verses?

What is your definition of tradition?

Tradition may viewed as both the mode of transmission as well as the content of the transmission of the gospel.

 

[guanophore]

The scriptures warn that false teachers would come into the church itself and decieve many. How does a catholic go about applying this principle in their church today?

We recognize persons, such as yourself, who deny the Apostolic Teachings and introduce doctrines to the contrary, such as sola scriptura.

We keep an eye out for people such as yourself, who reject the apostolic authority and tear down the Mother of Jesus and the Communion of saints.

8 Yet in like manner these men in their dreamings defile the flesh, reject authority, and revile the glorious ones."

We look out for folks such as yourself who discount the Teachings.

10 But these men revile whatever they do not understand,"

" looking after themselves; waterless clouds, carried along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; 13 wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars for whom the nether gloom of darkness has been reserved for ever. Jude 8-13

Although we hope and pray for a better outcome, we recognize these signs in those who reject the Apostolic Teaching.

I don’t see how it can be the catholic church since they have only defined infallibly a few verses. Since that is the case, how do you determine the correct and catholic interpretation of a passage that your church has never interpreted?

Still this tired strawman, ja4? Did you ever wonder how the Apostles knew and taught the right doctrine before the scripture was penned? Did you ever wonder how they knew “right doctrine” for the 400 years until the canon was defined?

I hate to break it to you ja4, but you keep bringing this phrase “your church” in your strawman accusations. There is only ONE CHURCH, which is His Body. There is only One Lord, One FAith, and One Baptism. Therefore, if you belong to the Lord, you are part of His Church. This business of “your church”, as though you are not a part of it, really is not scriptural at all.

Maybe a better question would be, what do YOU do, when you think false doctrines and teachers have crept into the Church?

 

[JoeyWarren]

Originally Posted by justasking4 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
The scriptures warn that false teachers would come into the church itself and decieve many. How does a catholic go about applying this principle in their church today?

If referring to the RCC, then the Holy Spirit will and has prevented the Bishop of Rome from speaking from the Chair of Peter which btw is the fulfillment and continuation of the Chair of Moses.

If referring to the body of believers as the church, then I would recognize you justasking4 as a false teacher, you are not here to be justasking, you are IMHO here to attempt to deceive us.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
We should only go by what is written. No more, no less.
guanophore;
Where is THAT in your bible?

Its found in I Corinthians 4:6–
Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.

 

[justasking4]

JoeyWarren;2824834]If referring to the RCC, then the Holy Spirit will and has prevented the Bishop of Rome from speaking from the Chair of Peter which btw is the fulfillment and continuation of the Chair of Moses.

Did the Holy Spirit prevent pope Honorius from speaking heresy who was condemned as a heretic by the 6th, 7th, and 8th ecumenical Councils?

If referring to the body of believers as the church, then I would recognize you justasking4 as a false teacher, you are not here to be justasking, you are IMHO here to attempt to deceive us.

:bigyikes:

 

[justasking4]

Confront them and expose them.

 

[Peter_Da_Rock]

Did the Holy Spirit prevent pope Honorius from speaking heresy who was condemned as a heretic by the 6th, 7th, and 8th ecumenical Councils?
:bigyikes:

This satan induced anti-catholic claim has already been answered.

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0010fea5.asp

 

[Peter_Da_Rock]

and answered here as well:

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0104fea4.asp

 

[justasking4]

This satan induced anti-catholic claim has already been answered.

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0010fea5.asp

Go read the history of this and i think you find it otherwise.

 

[Peter_Da_Rock]

Go read the history of this and i think you find it otherwise.

I have read the history both from the Catholic side and from the distorted Protestant side. I once was a naive and stupid Protestant. Satan kept me on the path of distributing lies and propaganda against the true church. You are just another pawn…