S
StTommyMore
Guest
FOr this reason I am about ready to give up on the thread.
- Status
P
paul_c
Guest
Well, it certainly would help if Moondweller would come clean and say what he really wants out of this thread. As we’ve been stating for a while, his object seems to be to make it seem as though the Catholic church is Mary centric instead of Jesus centric.
While this is clearly not true. I wonder what he really wants to accomplish by arguing this strawman? It is doubtful he could convince anyone that this is the truth. So perhaps the thread has run its course.
M
moondweller
Guest
Give me the Jewish reference on this so-called “Jewish” perspective. Also, show me where this notion of “active participation” is taught in the O.T., please. After the first Passover Jews didn’t put blood on the doorposts and lintels of their homes. How is it that the first born of each family didn’t die down through the centuries if a true “active participation” takes place? BTW, there was no such thing as a first century “Palestinian” Jew.
Also, the “Last Supper” wasn’t the Passover (ref. Jn. 18:28; 19:14).
M
mountaintop
Guest
a catholics faith is in Jesus Christ. catholics were purchase on Calvary and are covered with the blood of the new Covent they belong to GOD.
J
JustaServant
Guest
MD, do you think we are lying to you with the answers you have recieved?
C
Church_Militant
Guest
That’s your ill informed opinion, and prejudiced by what you have been taught, but you err because you fail to consider the full context of the New Testament.
The message of the Blessed Virgin has always been the same and is laid out in scripture in John 2.
[5] His mother saith to the waiters: **Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye. **(emphasis mine)
We Catholics can see this. How do you miss it then?
S
StTommyMore
Guest
The Last Supper was most definitely the Passover. That is why They were in Jerusalem. The night before Passover, the Seder is eaten, which is a liturgical meal.
As far as the remembrance, you have to research into the culture, and not confine yourself to the Scriptures. The Scriptures tell you the words, and not the culture of the audience.
A “first century Palestinian Jew” would have been a Jew living in the region of Palestine during the first century. I know it isn’t a biblical term, but one that scholars use.
M
moondweller
Guest
Christ was on the cross at the time they were selecting the lambs to be slain for the meal that was later to be eaten. I gave you the Biblical references in my previous post.
Then provide me with the source. Don’t just repeat what someone told you and consider it true. You need an official source to back up your statement.
Again, there was no such thing as a first century “Palestinian” Jew.
T
Tomster
Guest
Thank you very much!
T
Tomster
Guest
And, if I might ask, where in the world did MD come up with all of these poorly conceived opinions?
My answer would be a unique strain of PROTESTANT ORAL TRADITION!
S
StTommyMore
Guest
At this point you are just blathering based on an anti-Catholic bias. I don’t NEED an official source, because you know as well as I that Jesus is the Passover Lamb.
M
moondweller
Guest
I was asking for an official source on what you claimed was “Jewish culture.”
I didn’t say Jesus wasn’t the Passover Lamb. The issue was the “Last Supper.” Please read my posts more carefully before making a reply.
T
Tomster
Guest
And we suggest you do the same.
S
StTommyMore
Guest
The Last Supper was part of the Passover Liturgy. You want sources:
- Spirit of the Liturgy by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
- The Lamb’s Supper by Soctt Hahn
- Covenant and Communion by Scott Hahn
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I am familiar with all of your points. However, you seem to have missed the essential element of the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception; namely, that God, by a singular act of mercy, protected Mary from inheriting the sin of Adam from the moment of her conception within her mother’s womb. Mary WAS saved by God, but she was saved FROM inheriting a sinful nature in the first place.
It has already been demonstrated that numerous exceptions to the “all” in “all have sinned” can be listed, and obviously, there is no hint that Romans 3:23 specifically includes Mary in the mind of Paul. If you had stopped him in mid-sentence and asked, “Whoa, Paul…you don’t mean that infants have sinned, do you?”, he would have said, “Of course not.” “Well, what about those who are mentally incapable of sin?” “No,” he would have replied. You might have asked about Mary, but I have no idea how he would have answered you, because I don’t know what he knew or did not know at that time.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Oh, I get it…the “heads” side of the quarter is useful for buying a soft drink, but the tails side has no role in the transaction at all.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Since Jesus was fully God and fully human, how is it that Jesus did not inherit the sinful nature of Adam through his sinful mother, Mary?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
As stated previously, while it is possible that God would have gone to plan “B” had Mary refused to bear God’s Son, it could also be argued that without Mary, there would be no Jesus and thus, no Christianity, period.
If your own mother had said, “no”, there would be no moondweller and thus, no thread on The Importance of Mary in Catholicism.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Jesus was a good Jew who obeyed the Law of Moses perfectly, and a key component of the Law is known as the Ten Commandments. The first commandment that deals with our relationships with others states, “Honor your Father and Mother.”
As a dutiful Jewish son who obeyed the law perfectly, Jesus fulfilled this commandment by honoring His Mother. The Hebrew word for “honor” actually means “glorify”. So, Jesus bestows glory on his mother, Mary.
At the annunciation, the angel of the Lord called Mary “full of grace”. Through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Word of God declares that “from now on all generations will call [Mary] blessed”. Consequently, we honor Jesus’ mother in our own generation.
The Catholic Church was not the first to honor and glorify Mary - Jesus was. We simply obey the word of God which calls us to “be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly beloved children.” (Ephesians 5:1)
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
You’re being overly simplistic.
God Said To Make Them
People who oppose religious statuary forget about the many passages where the Lord commands the making of statues. For example: “And you shall make two cherubim of gold *; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be” (Ex. 25:18–20).
David gave Solomon the plan “for the altar of incense made of refined gold, and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All this he made clear by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all, all the work to be done according to the plan” (1 Chr. 28:18–19). David’s plan for the temple, which the biblical author tells us was “by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all,” included statues of angels.
Similarly Ezekiel 41:17–18 describes graven (carved) images in the idealized temple he was shown in a vision, for he writes, “On the walls round about in the inner room and [on] the nave were carved likenesses of cherubim.”
The Religious Uses of Images
During a plague of serpents sent to punish the Israelites during the exodus, God told Moses to “make [a statue of] a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it shall live. So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live” (Num. 21:8–9).
One had to look at the bronze statue of the serpent to be healed, which shows that statues could be used ritually, not merely as religious decorations.
Catholics use statues, paintings, and other artistic devices to recall the person or thing depicted. Just as it helps to remember one’s mother by looking at her photograph, so it helps to recall the example of the saints by looking at pictures of them. Catholics also use statues as teaching tools. In the early Church they were especially useful for the instruction of the illiterate. Many Protestants have pictures of Jesus and other Bible pictures in Sunday school for teaching children. Catholics also use statues to commemorate certain people and events, much as Protestant churches have three-dimensional nativity scenes at Christmas.
If one measured Protestants by the same rule, then by using these “graven” images, they would be practicing the “idolatry” of which they accuse Catholics. But there’s no idolatry going on in these situations. God forbids the* worship* of images as gods, but he doesn’t ban the making of images. If he had, religious movies, videos, photographs, paintings, and all similar things would be banned. But, as the case of the bronze serpent shows, God does not even forbid the ritual use of religious images.
It is when people begin to adore a statue as a god that the Lord becomes angry. Thus when people did start to worship the bronze serpent as a snake-god (whom they named “Nehushtan”), the righteous king Hezekiah had it destroyed (2 Kgs. 18:4).
*
- Status