Mary, the Mother of God

[jlhargus]

CONTINUED:

We are told in the book of Hebrews what the ark of the old covenant contained, [Hb9:4 … the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, WHEREIN WAS the golden pot that had MANNA, and AARON’S ROD that budded, and the TABLES OF THE CONVENANT;] Remember those who entered inside or touched the Ark of the Covenant died. The Ark was holy because of the presents of God. So also the NT Ark of the Covenant Mary;

2 MCABS 2:5 And when Jeremy came thither he found an hollow cave wherein he laid the tabernacle and the ark and the altar of incense and so stopped the door 6 And some of those that followed him came to mark the way but they could not find it 7 Which when Jeremy perceived he blamed them saying As for THAT PLACE IT SHALL BE UNKNOWN UNTILL THE TIME THAT GOD GATHER HIS PEOPLE again TOGETHER AND RECEIVE THEM UNTO MERCY. 8 THEN SHALL THE LORD SHEW THEM THESE THINGS AND THE GLORY OF THE LORD SHALL APPEAR AND THE CLOUD ALSO as it was shewed under Moses and as when Solomon desired that the place might be honourably sanctified

EX 40:34 Then** a cloud covered the tent of the congregation and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle** 35 And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation because the cloud abode thereon and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle

LK 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her** The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee** therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God

2 SAM 6:2 And David arose and went with all the people that were with him from Baale of Judah to bring up from thence the ark of God whose name is called by the name of the LORD of hosts that dwelleth between the cherubims
LK 1:39 **And Mary arose **in those days **and went **into the hill country with haste **into a city of Juda **

2 SAM 6:9 **And David was afraid **of the LORD that day and said How shall the ark of the LORD come to me?

LK 1:30 And the angel said unto her **Fear not Mary **for thou hast found favour with God

2 SAM 6:9 And David was afraid of the LORD that day and said How shall the ark of the LORD come to me?

LK 1:43 And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

2 SAM 6:16 And as the ark of the LORD came into the city of David Michal Saul’s daughter looked through a window and saw king David leaping and dancing before the LORD and she despised him in her heart

LK 1:44 For lo as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears** the babe leaped in my womb for joy **

2 SAM 6:18 And as soon as David had made an end of offering burnt offerings and peace offerings** he blessed the people in the name of the LORD** of hosts

LK 1:45 And** blessed is she that believed **for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord

2 SAM 6:11 And the ark of the LORD continued in the house of Obededom the Gittite three months: and the LORD blessed Obededom and all his household

LK 1:56 **And Mary abode with her about three months **and returned to her own house

[REV 11:19 And THE TEMPLE OF GOD WAS OPENED IN HEAVEN and THERE WAS SEEN IN HIS TEMPLE THE ARK OF HIS TESTAMENT and there were lightnings and voices and thunderings and an earthquake and great hail RV 12:1 And THERE APPEARED A GREAT WONDER in heaven A WOMAN CLOTHED WITH THE SUN and the MOON UNDER HER FEET and UPON HER HEAD A CROWN OF TWELVE STARS 2 And she being with child cried travailing in birth and pained to be delivered]

What is the Temple of God, but THE habitation for God, which the Son of David, Christ, is building with living stones. We call it the Church, when that Temple is opened there is seen the Ark. Then John identifies that Ark as a WOMAN. The woman is a person=Mary and a collective, symbolic of the Church Old and New Covenant people of God.
[RV 12:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven and behold a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns,and seven crowns upon his heads]. The great dragon is a person=Satan and a collective, symbolic of empires, kingdoms, governments and organizations that oppress the people of God through the ages

[RV 12:5 And she brought forth a man child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron and her child was caught up unto God and to his throne]. The child is a person=Christ and collective, symbolic of the Davidic Kingdom.

 

[ralphinal]

Either God has power over sin or He does not. If he does, he can create a unique being without the stain of Original Sin.

IF all have sinned, what sin do children who die before the age of reason commit? What sin do mentally retarded people commit?

Basically, the Church teaches that through a singular (unique) act of God, Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin (which included concupiscence:the natural drifting from God that all humans have) so that she could be the perfect mother of the Word made Flesh

 

[agiosotheos]

It has been hijacked by a few Eastern Orthodox zealots who will not relent.

sigh

I’m not Eastern Orthodox.

 

[agiosotheos]

One last word on the matter before you carry this onto another thread where it belongs:

Acts 9:31 (Greek)
ἡ μεν ουν εκκλησια καθ᾽ὁλης της ιουδαιας και γαλιλαιας και σαμαρειας ειχεν ειρηνην οικοδομουμενη και πορευομενη τω φοβω του κυριου, και τη παρακλησει του ἁγιου πνευματος επληθυνοντο.

Act 9:31 (Transliteration)
aye men oon ekklaysiaye kath olays tays ioodayeas kaye galilayeas kaye samarayas aycon ayraynayn oikodomoomenaye kaye poryoomenaye tow fobow too kurioo kaye tay paraklaysay too agioo pnyoomatos eplaythunonto (russ.org/gtb/luke.html#a9)

Acts 9:31
So the Church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied.

From this text, we can see the Greek word "kath olays" which is rendered “Catholic” in modern English and the word “ekklaysiaye” which becomes “ecclesia” in English and is commonly translated as “church”.

PS - From the 1st century on - we see the Church being called "Catholic":

Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

The Martyrdom of Polycarp
When finally he concluded his prayer, after remembering all who had at any time come his way – small folk and great folk, distinguished and undistinguished, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world – the time for departure came. So they placed him on an ***, and brought him into the city on a great Sabbath (*The Martyrdom of Polycarp *8 [A.D. 110]).

Got a problem with that? Talk to the Fathers - they usually do know best.

You actually think I have an issue with the Church being called Catholic?

You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

My objection all along has been quite clear: that I do not think the Roman communion is the Catholic Church, not that I think the Catholic Church does not exist.

 

[roselily]

:angel1:
O mother of God! O Most Holy Mother!

 

[elvisman]

sigh

I’m not Eastern Orthodox.

**Then you’re one who likes to play semantic games like identifying yourself as "An inquier to Oriental Orthodoxy from Eastern Orthodoxy", then denying you’re Eastern Orthodox. Not really sure what an "inquier" is anyway . . .

Make up your mind - and stay on topic.

 

[elvisman]

You actually think I have an issue with the Church being called Catholic?

You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

My objection all along has been quite clear: that I do not think the Roman communion is the Catholic Church, not that I think the Catholic Church does not exist.

And I was showing you precisely why you’re wrong.

Would you mind getting back to the topic of the thread and and stop trying to hijack it.
Start your own thread if you can’t concentrate on this topic.

 

[agiosotheos]

**Then you’re one who likes to play semantic **games like identifying yourself as *"*An inquier to Oriental Orthodoxy from Eastern Orthodoxy", then denying you’re Eastern Orthodox. Not really sure what an "inquier" is anyway . . .

Make up your mind - and stay on topic.

That indicates that I am Oriental Orthodox, not that I am Eastern Orthodox.

 

[agiosotheos]

And I was showing you precisely why you’re wrong.

Would you mind getting back to the topic of the thread and and stop trying to hijack it.
Start your own thread if you can’t concentrate on this topic.

How did any of your quotations indicate that the Roman communion is the Catholic Church?

 

[elvisman]

How did any of your quotations indicate that the Roman communion is the Catholic Church?

The Catholic Church, which includes many rites - Byzantine, Melkite among others - all in communion with the See of Peter.
I don’t know why you keep referring to the “Roman Communion”. This is not the name of the Church. It is the Catholic Church - the very same Church established by Jesus. The ONLY one, I might add.

Now - if you want to carry this discussion to another thread - be my guest. I will engage you anywhere - anytime.
Otherwise - Stick to the the topic of THIS thread.
We WERE talking about “Mary, the Mother of God” before you hijacked the thread.

 

[agiosotheos]

The Catholic Church, which includes many rites - Byzantine, Melkite among others - all in communion with the See of Peter.
**I don’t know why **you keep referring to the “Roman Communion”. This is not the name of the Church. It is the Catholic Church - the very same Church established by Jesus. The ONLY one, I might add.

Rome is not the See of Peter. It is a See of Peter. Alexandria is another See of Peter. Antioch is another.

The current conglomeration of those who are in communion with the See of Rome IS NOT the Catholic Church. It is thus not the Church established by Christ. This is why I am refraining from referring to it as such. “The Roman communion” is a name that accurately describes is, as it is defined by those churches which are in communion with Rome, and it allows me to refrain from referring to it as the Catholic Church, which it is not.

Finally, you avoided my question. How did the quotations that you posted indicate that the Roman communion is the Catholic Church?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Rome is not the See of Peter. It is a See of Peter. Alexandria is another See of Peter. Antioch is another.

The current conglomeration of those who are in communion with the See of Rome IS NOT the Catholic Church. It is thus not the Church established by Christ. This is why I am refraining from referring to it as such. “The Roman communion” is a name that accurately describes is, as it is defined by those churches which are in communion with Rome, and it allows me to refrain from referring to it as the Catholic Church, which it is not.

Finally, you avoided my question. How did the quotations that you posted indicate that the Roman communion is the Catholic Church?

agiosotheos,

Really then explain to me why our Catechism is called “Catechism of the Catholic Church”, or why does Wikipedia acknowledges that the Roman Catholic Church is also Catholic Church.

What is your source that the Church or See of Rome in not the Catholic Church? Second, why are you discussing this topic in Mary, the Mother of God thread, when this topic have nothing to do it?

Third, why is it that some of your Eastern Patriarchs calls for Christianity unity with the Catholic Church while you try to cause DIVISION?

“We live in a de-Christianized world, in a time that some define – mistakenly – as post-Christian,” Archbishop Hilarion said. “Contemporary society, with its practical materialism and moral relativism, is a challenge to us all. The future of humanity depends on our response… More than ever before, we Christians must stand together.”

Archbishop is representative of the new Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill of Moscow.

Bulgarian Orthodox prelate told Benedict XVI of his desire for unity, and his commitment to accelerate communion with the Catholic Church.

At the end of Wednesday’s general audience, Bishop Tichon, head of the diocese for Central and Western Europe of the Patriarchate of Bulgaria, stated to the Pope, “We must find unity as soon as possible and finally celebrate together,” L’Osservatore Romano reported.

“People don’t understand our divisions and our discussions,” the bishop stated. He affirmed that he will “not spare any efforts” to work for the quick restoration of “communion between Catholics and Orthodox.”

Stop this anti-Western unity thing with the Bishop of Rome. I am fed up with Eastern Orthodox who provokes disunity. Do you want to unity or divisions. Who’s will will you follow, your intellect, or God’s will. Since Jesus wanted all his believers to BE ONE! That includes all Christians, Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodoxy.

 

[agiosotheos]

Really then explain to me why our Catechism is called “Catechism of the Catholic Church”,

Because you think that you are the Catholic Church.

or why does Wikipedia acknowledges that the Roman Catholic Church is also Catholic Church.

It really doesn’t in the same sense that you believe you are. To do so would be a violation of its NPOV policy. What it is doing is simply allowing you to call yourselves what you self-identify as.

What is your source that the Church or See of Rome in not the Catholic Church?

The Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs.

Second, why are you discussing this topic in Mary, the Mother of God thread, when this topic have nothing to do it?

Because elvisman started objecting to this one other guy calling your community the “Roman church”.

Third, why is it that some of your Eastern Patriarchs calls for Christianity unity with the Catholic Church while you try to cause DIVISION?

I am not trying to cause division.

Bulgarian Orthodox prelate told Benedict XVI of his desire for unity, and his commitment to accelerate communion with the Catholic Church.

In case you didn’t look, I shouted anathema in response to the thread about that.

Stop this anti-Western unity thing with the Bishop of Rome.

Only after your renounce your heresies.

I am fed up with Eastern Orthodox who provokes disunity.

That’s fine. But we won’t stop until you propose a plan that is based off of real unity rather than allowing intercommunion amongst divided faiths.

Do you want to unity or divisions.

I want unity of the Sacred Mysteries, but I will not admit it until their is unity in faith.

Who’s will will you follow, your intellect, or God’s will. Since Jesus wanted all his believers to BE ONE! That includes all Christians, Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodoxy.

I am following God’s will by not allowing false unity.

 

[James_Least]

Will the real Catholics please stand up. Vatican II did reveal some deep seated schism in the body. It is getting worse.

See Jude 3.

Shalom

James Least

 

[elvisman]

Rome is not the See of Peter. It is a See of Peter. Alexandria is another See of Peter. Antioch is another.

The current conglomeration of those who are in communion with the See of Rome IS NOT the Catholic Church. It is thus not the Church established by Christ. This is why I am refraining from referring to it as such. “The Roman communion” is a name that accurately describes is, as it is defined by those churches which are in communion with Rome, and it allows me to refrain from referring to it as the Catholic Church, which it is not.

Finally, you avoided my question. How did the quotations that you posted indicate that the Roman communion is the Catholic Church?

WRONG again.
First of all - you keep using the terms Rome and Roman incorrectly. Rome is a place. Rome isn’t the Seat of Peter - the Papacy is. The Pope - Benedict XVI.

Do your homework, pal.

Lastly - the onus is upon YOU to disprove the Church’s claim that it is the ONE Church established by Jesus Christ because we have history and the writings of the Early Fathers behind us.

Once again - TAKE THIS TO ANOTHER THREAD.

 

[ralphinal]

Will the real Catholics please stand up. Vatican II did reveal some deep seated schism in the body. It is getting worse.

See Jude 3.

Shalom

James Least

The discussion that you see is between an Eastern Orthodox and Catholic. IT is not between two Catholics. V-2 did not really reveal any schism. The misconceptions about V-2 did.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I am not trying to cause division.

You are by turning this thread into Catholic vs. Eastern Orthodoxy when this thread have nothing to do with that at all.

Only after your renounce your heresies.

Didn’t the Archbishop of Constantinople taught the heresy of Nestorianism? The Catholic has never taught heresy. Name a Council that condemned the Teachings of the CC has heresy. You will find none!

I want unity of the Sacred Mysteries, but I will not admit it until their is unity in faith.

I am following God’s will by not allowing false unity.

Disobedient to your Patriarch is disobedience to Christ.

Lastly, I suggest you make a thread about Catholicism vs. Eastern Orthodox. Keep this thread on topic, or the moderator will close this thread.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Will the real Catholics please stand up. Vatican II did reveal some deep seated schism in the body. It is getting worse.

See Jude 3.

Shalom

James Least

Let’s keep this thread about Mary being the Mother of God. Discuss Vatican Council II in another THREAD!

 

[agiosotheos]

WRONG again.
First of all - you keep using the terms Rome and Roman incorrectly. Rome is a place. Rome isn’t the Seat of Peter - the Papacy is. The Pope - Benedict XVI.

You are denying that Benedict XVI occupies the See of Rome?

Lastly - the onus is upon YOU to disprove the Church’s claim that it is the ONE Church established by Jesus Christ because we have history and the writings of the Early Fathers behind us.

It is not “the Church”.

I don’t know what “history” and “writings” you are talking about. You are making the original, substantial, and positive claim, namely that the conglomeration of those in communion with the Bishop of Rome are the Church established by Christ. The one making the original, positive, and substantial claim is the one who is bound to first try and prove it. You have, in result, claimed that history and the Fathers are on your side. But you have not cited sources substantiating this claim. As such, the burden of proof is still resting upon you.

 

[agiosotheos]

You are by turning this thread into Catholic vs. Eastern Orthodoxy when this thread have nothing to do with that at all.

Now, elvisman did that when he started throwing a tantrum because someone wish to call your church the “Roman church” rather than the “Catholic Church”.

Also, I’ve said it numerous times and I will say it again. I am Oriental Orthodox, not Eastern Orthodox.

Didn’t the Archbishop of Constantinople taught the heresy of Nestorianism? The Catholic has never taught heresy. Name a Council that condemned the Teachings of the CC has heresy. You will find none!

I don’t see why you’re bringing up the Patriarchate of Constantinople with an OO as if it is still significant to me.

Yes, the See of Constantinople was run by Nestorius for 3 years. Cyril of Alexandria quickly jumped to correct this situation, and at the First Council of Ephesus Nestorius was replaced by an orthodox believer. Constantinople has never since taught Nestorianism to the same degree. So how is that significant?

This is totally different from what I am accusing Rome of. I see Rome as consistently teaching heresy for about 1,000 years now. That’s 333 times as long as Constantinople taught Nestorianism.

Which councils have condemned occupants of Rome as heretics? The Third Council of Ephesus condemned Leo I. The Second Council of Constantinople was close to condemning Vigilius who took 8-9 years of imprisonment to finally give up his support for the Three Chapters. The Third Council of Constantinople condemned Honorius. The Fourth Council of Constantinople condemned the filioque, which the Roman church later adopted. Leo III condemned the filioque in a concrete fashion by engraving the original Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed in silver. The Fifth Council of Constantinople contradicted the views expressed in the Summa by saying that the light of Tabor was the uncreated Energies of God and that the Essence of God could not by in any way perceived (the Summa teaches that the light of Tabor was a creation, just like any such manifestations of God in this life, and that the Essence of God is seen in the beatific vision). The Pan-Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem further condemned the filioque. The Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs condemned papal supremacy.

Disobedient to your Patriarch is disobedience to Christ.

That’s one of the most absurd things I’ve ever heard. You make it sound as if we believe in Patriarchal supremacy. Not only is Bartholomew not my Patriarch, but even if he was, opposition to one’s bishop if he is teaching error is very much part of the EO/OO tradition.