Prayer of Pope to Mary: To Whom Would the Apostles have pointed him ..Mary or Jesus?

[Leeann]

Originally Posted by Leeann

“The new Adam and the new Eve”…???..where does Luke acknowledge or any of the Apostles ever acknowledge Mary as “Eve”???

response guanophore

You seem to be laboring under a misconception that all of Christian truths are found in the Scripture.

Again out of context guanophore. Surprise!

I was responding specifically to what Good fella posted, where he mentioned how Luke “acknowledged this special redemptive union”…and then he posted scripture that doesn’t apply to the “new Eve” comment he made.

Good fella
The Church Father is drawing our attention to the intimate association between **the new Adam and the new Eve **in undoing what both Adam and Eve had incurred in their disobedience and fall from grace. **The evangelist Luke acknowledged this special ****redemptive union **between the woman and her offspring in God’s plan of salvation. In the words of Elizabeth: “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb” (Lk 1:42).

Originally Posted by Leeann

God didn’t “rely on the faith and love of a woman” – He WAS going to do this, Gabriel made this quite clear when he visited Mary and TOLD her what WAS going to happen….no request was made of Mary.

response guanophore:

You think the HS raped her?

Guanophore….I don’t want to communicate with you any more.

 

[Good_Fella]

This is simply not true.
The above scripture is in reference to the first “missionary” trip that Paul made with Barnabas out of Antioch.
Those gathered, fasted and prayed and “they laid hands” on them, and sent them away…there was no “formal ordination by a bishop” as defined by the Catholic Church.
As you will see below, (Saul/Paul) was already ministering, preaching and teaching *prior *to this missionary trip.

Acts 9: V20 – 22

And further on in verses 27 – 31

And Acts 11: 25-26

So Ananias went and entered the house; laying his hands on him, he said, "Saul, my brother, the Lord has sent me, Jesus who appeared to you on the way by which you came, that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.
Acts 9, 17

Paul was officially ordained when Ananias laid his hands on him before his formal baptism. The formal ritual of the laying on of hands was repeated before he set out to do what Christ had called him to do in confirmation of his call and legitimate authority - to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. The gesture also served to invoke the Holy Spirit to be with him and guide him in all truth in his appointed ministry. In the Roman rite an ordained priest who co-celebrates the Mass with a presiding Bishop will have the latter’s hands raised over him in blessing before he reads the Gospel and gives a homily.

“Sacramental ordination”, as defined by the Catholic Church, is* not* necessary for one to be a legitimate successor of the Apostles and preacher of the gospels, as has been shown in the scripture references above.

By what authority do you make that claim, your private interpretation of the written word? From the time of the apostles the Church has always known that sacramental ordination is necessary for one to be a legitimate minister of the word and the sacraments which were instituted by Christ himself, and that includes the sacrament of Holy Orders.

He summoned the Twelve and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure deseases, and he sent them to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal the sick.
Luke 9, 1

“And I confer a kingdom on you, just as my Father has conferred one on me.”
Luke 22, 29

Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said, ** “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”
John 20, 21-23

There is a distinction between the ministerial priesthood and the common priesthood of all believers. It was Christ himself who had ordained the Twelve by which the apostles had the authority invested in them to ordain their successors and they in turn others in the Episcopate ad finitum through the ritual of making physical contact.

But the one who gives us security with you in Christ and who annointed us is God; he has also put his seal upon us and given the Spirit in our hearts as a first installment.
2 Corinthians 1, 21-22

For this reason, I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God that you have through the imposition of my hands.
2 Timothy 1, 6

PAX :harp:

 

[Leeann]

Originally Posted by Leeann
More to the point, is that the Marian doctrines and the devotion to Mary that exists today within the Catholic Church, was never acknowledged or referred to by the Apostles when they were establishing the early churches.

Good fella
The Scriptures reflect what the Apostles and the first believers acknowledged about Mary.

Yes, they acknowledge her sufficiently.

Good fella
Whether they fully understood all the theological implications is another question.

You mean the “Catholic Church’s theological implications” that were yet to come.

Let’s not forget, they were living and walking and learning from JESUS……and the Holy Spirit was promised to them ….and He came!

Good fella
They began to slowly understand the fullness of God’s revelation in Christ once the Paraclete descended upon them in the cenacle, and this understanding would gradually crystalize and be articulated through the course of the centuries.

Nonsense.
It didn’t take Peter that long at all to understand the fullness of God’s revelation in Christ once the HS descended upon him….Acts 2 from 14 – 37….Peter preached and exhorted Jesus immediately…….and then it continues on from **V38: **

38 But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: **and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call. **40 **And with very many other words did he testify and exhort them, **saying: Save yourselves from this perverse generation.
41 They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls. 42 And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43 And fear came upon every soul: many wonders also and signs were done by the apostles in Jerusalem, and there was great fear in all. 44 And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common. 45 Their possessions and goods they sold, and divided them to all, according as every one had need. 46 **And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of heart; 47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord increased daily together such as should be saved. **

Good fella
What the Church Fathers implicitly and explicitly teach about Mary is scriptural. But for you the written word isn’t explicit and literal enough with regard to Mary.

I’ll refer you to your first line above:
The Scriptures reflect what the Apostles and the first believers acknowledged about Mary.
And I’ll repeat my response to that – they acknowledge her sufficiently.

Good fella
And what you believe about Christ and the Holy Trinity in accord with the Catholic faith you claim to find in the written word with a hindsight bias.

I’ve never claimed that, with a hindsight bias…that’s what you claim for me.
How righteous of you.

Posted by Leeann:
You state that John believed and taught that the “Holy Eucharist” is the actual body and blood of Christ, where do you get that information from?

Response Good fella

John 6:48-61

That’s what I thought.

 

[Good_Fella]

Originally Posted by Leeann

But a shoot shall spout from the stump of Jesse,
and from his roots a bud shall blossom.
Isaiah 11, 1 [NAB]

And by doing so, Jerome has changed the meaning of this scripture verse.
Anyone can figuratively apply the symbols in scripture to mean anything they want. But to use a quote of his as you did, as if it somehow had “God’s truth” to it in supporting how Jerome himself viewed Mary…is simply misleading.

Not anything they want, since they are guided by the Holy Spirit. You fail to appreciate typology which serves to communicate the fullness of divine revelation mediated through Scripture and Tradition. The Jews still object to and reject our notion of Jesus being the shoot from the stump of Jesse. I already explained how Mary can be typified as the shoot in her likeness to her Son and association with him. Applying a different meaning doesn’t necessarily nullify the primary meaning of a symbol provided a sound analogy can be made. The ark of the old Covenant is still just that even though it can prefigure Mary in a similar capacity.

“The new Adam and the new Eve”…???..where does Luke acknowledge or any of the Apostles ever acknowledge Mary as “Eve”???

You mean the new Eve, don’t you? The Annunciation narrative in Luke and that of the wedding feast at Cana in John’s gospel portray Mary as a type of new Eve. John introduces Mary associated with her Son in the order of redemption following a pattern which models the creation narrative in Genesis with the culmination in the creation of Adam and Eve. Luke portrays Mary as the woman who helps reverse the fall by her faith and love in antithesis to the unfaithfulness and indifference of Eve which helped incur man’s fall from grace and subjection to sin and the corruption of death.

God didn’t “rely on the faith and love of a woman” – He WAS going to do this, Gabriel made this quite clear when he visited Mary and TOLD her what WAS going to happen….no request was made of Mary.

You keep twisting what I say. I never said God relied on Mary. I said God “willed” to rely on Mary even though he didn’t have to. God doesn’t have to rely on our cooperation with his grace in faith nor on our collaboration with him in the work of salvation through love, but he willed this order of redemption nonetheless in his infinite love and wisdom. Unfortunately your view of God is that of a being whose only attribute is omnipotence and we are his playthings for his pleasure: a corollary of the fifth unbiblical Protestant Sola.

If God hasn’t willed to rely, so to speak, on our “faith working through love”, as Paul puts it, then we can actually be justified and saved without having faith and freely acting in it by the help of God’s grace. The whole notion of being “rewarded” with an eternal inheritance would be meaningless.

Indeed God intended to save us when he sent his messenger to Mary, and that’s why he chose her. God knew she would freely say “Yes” to his will and so the angel Gabriel could refer to the future event with certainty as if it has already occurred. If no request was made of Mary, she would simply have kept silent. Instead she says: “Let it be done to me.” Mary gave her free consent. God has given us a free will which he respects for it’s a mark of the dignity we possess as creatures created in the divine image.

PAX :harp:

 

[Leeann]

Originally Posted by Leeann
This is simply not true.
The above scripture is in reference to the first “missionary” trip that Paul made with Barnabas out of Antioch.
Those gathered, fasted and prayed and “they laid hands” on them, and sent them away…there was no “formal ordination by a bishop” as defined by the Catholic Church.
As you will see below, (Saul/Paul) was already ministering, preaching and teaching prior to this missionary trip.

Acts 9: V20 – 22

And further on in verses 27 – 31

And Acts 11: 25-26

Good fella
So Ananias went and entered the house; laying his hands on him, he said, "Saul, my brother, the Lord has sent me, Jesus who appeared to you on the way by which you came, that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.
Acts 9, 17
Paul was officially ordained when Ananias laid his hands on him before his formal baptism.

I must point out Good fella…that this is not what you were *orginally posting *about when I responded with my quote that you’ve now re-posted above. Here is the scripture verse you were “specifically” referring too and your comment below it then, which implies that it was at this point in time, just prior to his first missionary trip, that Paul was “ordained”….and that was what I was responding too.

Good fella

While they were worshipping the Lord and fasting, the holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then completing their fasting and prayer, they ‘laid hands on them’ and sent them off.
Acts 13, 2-3

Even though Paul was directly chosen by Christ, his apostolic ministry wasn’t ratified until he was formally ordained by a bishop of the Church through the ‘laying on of hands.’

And now, as to Ananias…yes……Ananias was obeying God’s command to go to Paul and lay hands on him “so that he might receive his sight.”

9:11And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth,
9:12And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight.

In Verses 18 - 20 we see the immediate affect:

9:18And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: **and he received sight **forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.
9:19And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.
9:**20And straightway he preached Christ **in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.

Paul had also received the Holy Spirit and he preached, prior to having hands laid on him before his missionary trip as you mention below.

Good fella
The formal ritual of the laying on of hands was repeated before he set out to do what Christ had called him to do in confirmation of his call and legitimate authority - to preach the gospel to the Gentiles.
The gesture also served to invoke the Holy Spirit to be with him and guide him in all truth in his appointed ministry. In the Roman rite an ordained priest who co-celebrates the Mass with a presiding Bishop will have the latter’s hands raised over him in blessing before he reads the Gospel and gives a homily.

In many non-Catholic churches this is also done.

Leeann:
“Sacramental ordination”, as defined by the Catholic Church, is not necessary for one to be a legitimate successor of the Apostles and preacher of the gospels, as has been shown in the scripture references above.

Good fella:
From the time of the apostles the Church has always known that sacramental ordination is necessary for one to be a legitimate minister of the word and the sacraments which were instituted by Christ himself, and that includes the sacrament of Holy Orders.

He summoned the Twelve and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure deseases, and he sent them to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal the sick.
Luke 9, 1

“And I confer a kingdom on you, just as my Father has conferred one on me.”
Luke 22, 29

Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”
John 20, 21-23

There is a distinction between the ministerial priesthood and the common priesthood of all believers. It was Christ himself who had ordained the Twelve by which the apostles had the authority invested in them to ordain their successors and they in turn others in the Episcopate ad finitum through the ritual of making physical contact.

But the one who gives us security with you in Christ and who annointed us is God; he has also put his seal upon us and given the Spirit in our hearts as a first installment.
2 Corinthians 1, 21-22

For this reason, I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God that you have through the imposition of my hands.
2 Timothy 1, 6

Key words from my quote above -”as defined by the Catholic Church” – meaning quite simply that there are other non-Catholic churches that are blessed by God and the presence of the Holy Spirit, where their ministers and pastors are anointed by the Holy Spirit and following God’s Will, by preaching the gospel message and following in the Apostles footsteps.

 

[Good_Fella]

Yes, they acknowledge her sufficiently.

Sufficent enough as to what you independently choose to believe.

You mean the “Catholic Church’s theological implications” that were yet to come.

There is only one universal Church which Christ established that still exists and had existed since apostolic time for 1500+ years before the so-called Reformation and the scattering of Christ’s sheep.

Let’s not forget, they were living and walking and learning from JESUS……and the Holy Spirit was promised to them ….and He came!

That’s right. The Holy Spirit came to guide the Church to all truth until the end of time, not to the time of the death of the last apostle. Until the end of this age the Holy Spirit reveals “the things that are coming”. It took the Church centuries to arrive at a common difinitive understanding of original sin with all the theological implications attached and problems to resolve. In Protestantism the concept of original sin is still a subject of roiling disputes between denominations.

Nonsense.
It didn’t take Peter that long at all to understand the fullness of God’s revelation in Christ once the HS descended upon him….Acts 2 from 14 – 37….Peter preached and exhorted Jesus immediately…….and then it continues on from **V38: **

38 But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: **and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call. **40 **And with very many other words did he testify and exhort them, **saying: Save yourselves from this perverse generation.
41 They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls. 42 And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43 And fear came upon every soul: many wonders also and signs were done by the apostles in Jerusalem, and there was great fear in all. 44 And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common. 45 Their possessions and goods they sold, and divided them to all, according as every one had need. 46 **And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of heart; 47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord increased daily together such as should be saved. **

There’s more to our faith other than the bare essentials. There are articles of faith that rest on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Fundamentalism is arid and shallow and deficient in knowledge of the fullness of divine truth and lacking in appreciation of what is sacred being severed from the historic Christian faith.

I’ll refer you to your first line above:
The Scriptures reflect what the Apostles and the first believers acknowledged about Mary.
And I’ll repeat my response to that – they acknowledge her sufficiently.

The Scriptures implicitly reflect what the apostles and the first Christians believed about Mary after her dormition. You simply believe they acknowledged what you wish to believe about Mary outside the Church which was founded on Peter and the Apostles.

I’ve never claimed that, with a hindsight bias…that’s what you claim for me.
How righteous of you.

Above in this thread, or the first one on this topic, you claimed that you could arrive at a full and definitive understanding of the Trinity just by reading the Bible. But that’s easy to say now that you are familiar with this dogma that was defined by the Catholic Church whom you fail to trust and respect in other matters of faith. You pick and choose whatever articles of faith personally appeal to you with no regard to the apostolic teaching authority of the Church hierarchy. If the Church is wrong about Mary, how can you be sure she isn’t wrong about the Trinity? Again you will reply, I have the Bible and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to instruct me. If that’s so, there wouldn’t have been any major Trinitarian heresies in the history of Christendom. The Mormons feel the same way as you do, but their understanding of the Trinity (Tritheism) radically differs from yours if in fact your idea corresponds with the teaching of the Catholic Church.

I’m tired of bickering with you. So I’ll just respond to a couple of previous replies of yours before I bid you adieu. :yawn:

PAX :harp:

 

[Leeann]

Oh please don’t bother responding to anything else Good fella…if you sincerely consider it bickering…your spirit has been stressed and I don’t want to be a part of that, sincerely…be blessed…just one last thing…

To whom would the Apostles point the Pope too…Mary or Jesus?

 

[Good_Fella]

Read the beginning of what you state above…the part about “a puppet on a string”….

God’s foreknowledge does not preclude human free will. If it did there could be no divine justice: no human cooperation with the grace of God to merit one’s salvation and eternal reward nor culpabilty in one’s transgression against God that could lead to eternal damnation unless repented of. I can foresee or expect an elderly woman to take my seat which I intend to offer her on a crowded bus, but she still has the freedom to accept or refuse my kind offer. The primary cause of what she chooses to do is her own decision to act in the manner she has chosen. My offer functions as a secondary cause that has influenced how she will respond either way, since she is responding to a situation which I have initiated. Since I am not omniscient, I can only imagine how she would normally respond or should respond considering her age and physical frailty. If I have imagined correctly, her response is still an act of her own will. Let us not espouse the counterpart of biological determinism: spiritual determinism. Both schools of thought deny human free will.

Willingly I will sacrifice to you;
I will give thanks to your name, O Lord,
for it is good.
Psalm 54, 6

And of course by the Catholic Church’s teaching anyway – Mary was already conceived sinless, wasn’t she…if so……her “fiat” was a given.

Eve was created sinless before she freely rebelled against God and helped transmit a sinful human nature to us all. God is not the author of her transgression or else she couldn’t be morally responsible for her act of disobedience. And if that were case, then Christ’s atoning death would be senseless. Being created sinless doesn’t necessarily preclude human free will. The Son of Man was made sinless of a woman by virtue of his substantial grace of union with the Father but had a distinct human free will with his divine will in oneness with the Father. The saints in heaven are sinless and have been made perfect but still retain their free will.

We compromise our free will by succumbing to the slavery of sin. True freedom lies in wanting to obey God because of our love for him. It was not God but Mary’s love of God, who was very near her and whose presence she felt, that compelled her to choose not to sin. Eve compromised her freedom by choosing to listen to the serpent on account of her lack of love and personal vanity, which proved stronger than her love of God.

And Mary said,
“My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord.”
Luke 1, 46

“The very fact that God has elected her proves that none other was holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary.”
Jacob of Sarug (ante A.D. 521)

PAX :harp:

 

[Deconi]

Dunno why you ‘guys’ waste so much effort on “Leann.” The woman is not stupid nor confused. She can read and decipher for herself what is available here and everywhere else on the net.

She just PREFERS to remain in the ‘comfort’ of the confused state of her understanding and the hope that she is correct.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Dunno why you ‘guys’ waste so much effort on “Leann.” The woman is not stupid nor confused. She can read and decipher for herself what is available here and everywhere else on the net.

She just PREFERS to remain in the ‘comfort’ of the confused state of her understanding and the hope that she is correct.

I’m sure she’d be able to categorize you as preferring to remain in the comfort of an overemphasis on Mary that your tradition has conditioned you to accept and defend uncritically.

It’s the photographer who decides what to focus on and what the photo gets named.

 

[Peter_J]

Dunno why you ‘guys’ waste so much effort on “Leann.” The woman is not stupid nor confused. She can read and decipher for herself what is available here and everywhere else on the net.

She just PREFERS to remain in the ‘comfort’ of the confused state of her understanding and the hope that she is correct.

Personally, if I were to make a list of posters who ought to be ignored, people who make uncharitable statements would go at the top of the list.

 

[Leeann]

But a shoot shall spout from the stump of Jesse,
and from his roots a bud shall blossom.
Isaiah 11, 1 [NAB]

Originally Posted by Leeann

And by doing so, Jerome has changed the meaning of this scripture verse.
Anyone can figuratively apply the symbols in scripture to mean anything they want. But to use a quote of his as you did, as if it somehow had “God’s truth” to it in supporting how Jerome himself viewed Mary…is simply misleading.

Response Good fella

Not anything they want, since they are guided by the Holy Spirit. You fail to appreciate typology which serves to communicate the fullness of divine revelation mediated through Scripture and Tradition.

You fail to appreciate that it is **the Holy Spirit who communicates the fullness of divine revelation **mediated through Scripture…… if….for whatever reason, anyone’s **use of typology ** changes the meaning of Scripture…it is apparent that they weren’t being guided by the Holy Spirit, but by their own exuberance or motives.

Good fella

The Jews still object to and reject our notion of Jesus being the shoot from the stump of Jesse. I already explained how Mary can be typified as the shoot in her likeness to her Son and association with him. Applying a different meaning doesn’t necessarily nullify the primary meaning of a symbol provided a sound analogy can be made.

I disagree.
As I stated above, Jerome changed **the primary meaning **of the scripture verse itself.

“*There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a flower shall grow out of his roots.’ **The rod is the mother of the Lord ***-- simple, pure, unsullied; drawing no germ of life from without but fruitful in singleness like God himself…Set before you the blessed Mary, whose surpassing purity made her meet to be the mother of our Lord.”
St. Jerome (A.D. 384)

 

[Leeann]

Good fella:

That’s right. The Holy Spirit came to guide the Church to all truth until the end of time, not to the time of the death of the last apostle. Until the end of this age the Holy Spirit reveals “the things that are coming”. It took the Church centuries to arrive at a common difinitive understanding of original sin with all the theological implications attached and problems to resolve. In Protestantism the concept of original sin is still a subject of roiling disputes between denominations.

Nevertheless, His one true Church, the body of all true and faithful believers, no matter what church or denomination they belong too, is still in existence and He will continue to be with them to the end of time as He promised.

Leeann:

Nonsense.

It didn’t take Peter that long at all to understand the fullness of God’s revelation in Christ once the HS descended upon him….Acts 2 from 14 – 37….Peter preached and exhorted Jesus immediately…….and then it continues on from V38:

*38 But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call. 40 And with very many other words did he testify and exhort them, saying: Save yourselves from this perverse generation.
41 They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls. 42 And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43 And fear came upon every soul: many wonders also and signs were done by the apostles in Jerusalem, and there was great fear in all. 44 And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common. 45 Their possessions and goods they sold, and divided them to all, according as every one had need. **46 And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of heart; 47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord increased daily together such as should be saved. ***

Response Good fella:

There’s more to our faith other than the bare essentials. There are articles of faith that rest on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Fundamentalism is arid and shallow and deficient in knowledge of the fullness of divine truth and lacking in appreciation of what is sacred being severed from the historic Christian faith.

It seriously saddens me to read these words you’ve written, especially after re-reading the scripture that you posted in my quote directly above them, particularly the last Verses 46 and 47. What a wonderful description of the early church.
I am not sure what you mean when you refer to “the bare essentials”….but it is evident that the way the early Christians in these verses lived and believed was satisfying and sufficient in God’s eyes.
As to your description of “Fundamentalsim”….I really don’t know.

Leeann:
I’ll refer you to your first line above:
The Scriptures reflect what the Apostles and the first believers acknowledged about Mary.
And I’ll repeat my response to that – they acknowledge her sufficiently.

Response Good Fella:

The Scriptures implicitly reflect what the apostles and the first Christians believed about Mary after her dormition. You simply believe they acknowledged what you wish to believe about Mary outside the Church which was founded on Peter and the Apostles.

That is your opinion, again on what you think I believe and on what you think I wish.
I’ve stated clearly that “they acknowledge her sufficiently”.

Leeann:
I’ve never claimed that, with “a hindsight bias”…that’s what *you *claim for me.
How righteous of you.

Response Good fella:
Above in this thread, or the first one on this topic, you claimed that you could arrive at a full and definitive understanding of the Trinity just by reading the Bible.

I don’t believe that anyone has ever or ever will be able to arrive at a “*full and definitive **understanding of the Trinity” *– so I am pretty sure that I never said it quite in those terms, however you are quite right, at sometime I’ve have posted that the scriptures are pretty clear on defining the Trinity, at least to me they were right from the beginning of my walk with the Lord.

Good fella:

But that’s easy to say now that you are familiar with this dogma that was defined by the Catholic Church whom you fail to trust and respect in other matters of faith.

I read the scriptures and by the mercy and grace of God and by the leading of the Holy Spirit it made sense to me….it’s just that it happened *before *I “was familiar with this dogma that was defined by the Catholic Church”…or for that matter any of the other churches of other denominations that have the same understanding as the Catholic Church.
I’m sorry if this offends you in some way, but that’s what happened.

 

[Leeann]

Good fella:

You pick and choose whatever articles of faith personally appeal to you with no regard to the apostolic teaching authority of the Church hierarchy.

No….that is what *you *say I do.
What I actually do, is trust and believe and have faith that the Lord will lead and direct my way…He knows my heart and mind and spirit better than I do….or you do for that matter.

Good fella:

If the Church is wrong about Mary, how can you be sure she isn’t wrong about the Trinity? Again you will reply, I have the Bible and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to instruct me. If that’s so, there wouldn’t have been any major Trinitarian heresies in the history of Christendom.

Since you’ve already decided on what answer I would give….and since you have given it for me, to your satisfaction, may I ask what is wrong with a true and faithful believer trusting in the guidance of the Holy Spirit, especially when reading the bible?

I don’t know about all the Trinitarian heresies in the history of Christendom.
I do know and understand what has been revealed to me and who revealed it to me and when it happened.

Good fella:

The Mormons feel the same way as you do, but their understanding of the Trinity (Tritheism) radically differs from yours if in fact your idea corresponds with the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Well set your mind at rest Good fella……the Mormon’s understanding* is* radically different to mine, which happens to correspond with the teaching of not only the Catholic Church but that of which other church denominations hold fast too as well.

Anything that can be tested proportionately against scripture – God’s Truth – is worth holding on to. The fact that “this dogma” was already there beforehand in the Catholic Church (or any other church) meant absolutely nothing to me at the time I was reading the bible, I didn’t “pick” this article of faith from anyone because it appealed to me….it is God’s Truth…and as I said, by His mercy and grace and His will…I was able to comprehend and accept it.

 

[guanophore]

Not at all, you must have misunderstood ….again……either that, or you are trying to confuse the issue?

No, I dont’ think I misunderstood. I think it is clear you are trying to use these verses to “prove” that Paul was not ordained by the successors to the Apostles.

Well if you like, I can post all the Chapters and Verses of Acts or perhaps all the New Testament ……however if you take the time to carefully read them through, you will never find “sacramental ordination”, as it is defined solely by the Catholic Church, as to being necessary for one to be a legitimate successor of the Apostles and a preacher of the gospels.

It seems like that would be outside the scope of this thread. I have carefully read them, and I am pursuaded that they represent 100% what the Church believes and teaches about ordination. I am not sure what you mean by “sacramental ordination”, but perhaps that would best be addressed in a new thread.

Furthermore, this ordination is not “solely defined by the Catholic Church”. You will find this present in all the Churches founded by Apostles, including the Orthodox, ORiental, and Coptic Churches. It is considered in every place founded by Apostes to be necessary. there are also many of our separated brethren that accept and practice this Apostolic teaching, though it is not considered licit and in some cases valid ordination by Rome.

It boils down to an authority problem. Some people just don’t want to accep the authority appointed by Christ.

 

[Good_Fella]

You fail to appreciate that it is **the Holy Spirit who communicates the fullness of divine revelation **mediated through Scripture…… if….for whatever reason, anyone’s **use of typology ** changes the meaning of Scripture…it is apparent that they weren’t being guided by the Holy Spirit, but by their own exuberance or motives.

Jerome didn’t change the meaning of the Scriptures. You just fail to see that what you read means a lot more than what’s on the surface. Luke typified Mary as the ark of the Covenant without changing the meaning of the Scriptures. The ark can also refer to our Lord from a given perspective. Was the evangelist being “exuberant”? Typology is a literary form of expression which God has utilized to reveal the fullness of his truth in his plan of salvation. You’ll never fully understand what the Holy Spirit communicates to us as long as you read the Bible purely in a literal sense. The spiritual and analogical senses are just as important.

I disagree.
As I stated above, Jerome changed **the primary meaning **of the scripture verse itself.

“*There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a flower shall grow out of his roots.’ **The rod is the mother of the Lord ***-- simple, pure, unsullied; drawing no germ of life from without but fruitful in singleness like God himself…Set before you the blessed Mary, whose surpassing purity made her meet to be the mother of our Lord.”
St. Jerome (A.D. 384)

Jerome accurately drew an analogy between Jesus and Mary. Apparently you’ve ignored the scriptural passages I provided above to show you how it’s possible in light of Jerome’s words. This is why I have no wish to discuss anything further with you. You’re here just to bicker. If you don’t agree with what I say, that’s fine. But refrain from making further comments if you’re going to ignore things I’ve presented to show you what I mean. You have a tendency to ignore and twist what people reply because you refuse to see what they mean. I’ll ignore your replies below. It’s a waste of effort. I still have to reply to two other posts of yours above and that’s it.

“Good night, nurse.”
Archibald Bunker

PAX :harp:

 

[Bellus]

It doesn’t matter what the Apostles would have said. God said there is ONE mediator, Christ Jesus. No where does it ever tell us to pray to Mary or anyone other than the Father through His Son Jesus.

 

[Stephen_C]

It doesn’t matter what the Apostles would have said. God said there is ONE mediator, Christ Jesus. No where does it ever tell us to pray to Mary or anyone other than the Father through His Son Jesus.

So you have never asked anyone to pray for you? Or have prayed for someone else?

 

[Bellus]

Absolutely. But according to the bible, God never instructs us to ask for prayers from anyone in heaven. He says that we (His children) are to hold one another up in prayer. Saints are not our intercessors, Jesus in our only mediator, according to God. Mary and the saints are not omniscient. Even glorified in Heaven, they are still finite beings with limitations. Whenever the Bible mentions praying to or speaking with the dead, it is in the context of sorcery, witchcraft, necromancy, and divination. There simply is no basis for praying to anyone other than God. Christians can and should conduct intercessory prayers for one another, but the bible does not tell us to ask anyone in heaven to do this.

 

[Good_Fella]

A totally different gospel to that which Paul preached.

Romans 5 : V 1- 5

And further: V11- 15

Paul certainly didn’t recognize Jerome’s viewpoint and what he was emphasizing - about any manner of equality in importance and dignity that Mary had to the male existence of Jesus.

Paul’s sole focus is on Jesus.

Paul’s contribution to Mariology lies in the fact that he lays the foundations of the theology of human mediation in God’s order of redemption (Col 1:24; 1 Cor 3:9). While the redemptive sacrifice of Christ was accomplished on Calvary, the work of redemption and the application of Christ’s sacrifice to human beings has continued from the start of the history of salvation. Keep in mind that Paul’s teachings on the activity of the Holy Spirit assisted the Church in its articulation of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity although the apostle himself did not provide a comprehensive theology, at least not in his occasional pastoral letters. He orally preached more than he wrote. Now that the Catholic Church has defined this doctrine as dogma you can easily argue from hindsight that Paul makes it clear in his epistles. But the fact is he doesn’t.

Paul’s comparitive silence on Mary is understandable given the very structure of the New Testament, although Luke is the most vocal of all the writers. The New Testament is not an orderly compendium of Christian doctrine as is the Catechism which provides a comprehensive synthesis of the magisterial teachings of the Church. If you choose to argue from Paul’s silence, then you must question whether he had actually preached about the Virgin Birth, for he makes no direct reference to it in any of his letters which bear fundamental themes pertaining to issues of faith concerning particular communities outside of Palestine from where Marian traditional beliefs have emerged. There is no reason for assuming that whatever Paul failed to mention in any of his few letters wasn’t necessarily taught in the primitive Church or even preached by the apostle himself in a wider scope to the Gentiles who would be less sensible to the Jewish Christian’s perception of Mary.

Paul does mention Mary and only once without addressing her name, unlike the Gospel writers. Still he presents her as an active participant in the mystery of the Incarnation of the Word and of the redemption of those who are called to the “adoption of sons”. The apostle regards Mary as “woman”, just as John does, from whom Jesus is made in the “fullness of time” for our redemption. Mary’s role as the new Eve is alluded to in Galatians 4:4. Paul does acknowledge without any further explanation that our Lord’s redemptive mission is inextricably united to the secondary but highly privileged role of his blessed Mother. Since Paul had laid the foundations of the theology of human mediation in the economy of salvation, I hardly doubt he regarded Mary as a mere mindless instrument of our salvation.

I urge you brothers, by the mercies of God, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, your spiritual worship.
Romans 12, 1

PAX :harp: