Monday, August 25, 2008

It is Monday, after all

James and EA have graciously offered to pray for me (or at least, I read their willingness between the lines). Just to make sure they get it...


O All-holy James and EA, light of my darkened soul, my hope, my shelter, my refuge, my consolation and my joy: I thank y'all that y'all hast accounted me worthy, although unworthy, to be a partaker of the immaculate Body and precious Blood of the Son of God. But do y'all, who know the true Light, enlighten the mental eyes of my heart; O y'all who witness to the fountain of immortality, quicken me who lie dead in sin. O compassion-loving servant of the merciful God, have mercy upon me, and grant me humility and contrition of heart, and meekness in my thoughts, and deliverance from the bondage of my vain imaginings. And account me worthy, even unto my last breath, to receive without condemnation the sanctification of the immaculate Mysteries, unto the healing of both soul and body. And grant unto me tears of repentance and confession, that I may hymn y'all and glorify y'all all the days of my life: for blessed and glorified art y'all unto all ages.

Amen.

23 comments:

evenshine said...

"that I may hymn y'all and glorify y'all all the days of my life: for blessed and glorified art y'all unto all ages"

ROTFL.

(Wipes away tear).

Thanks. I needed that at 8am!

Mike Burgess said...

It seems to me that you haven't the faintest notion of what St. Paul, e.g., was talking about. His writings are replete with the implications of union with Christ, specifically participating in His reign with Him (2 Timothy 2:12). You don't have even an inkling of what St. Athanaius was explicating when he said that we are made by grace what He is by nature when we come fully into union with Him. You cannot possibly understand the implications of mocking the gracious work of the Holy Spirit by Whom we are "made partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4, cf 1 John 3:2, "Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when He appears we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him as He is.") Who but someone who is graciously made into a truly divinized person could "see Him as He is"?

Your obvious disdain for Scriptural teaching and the necessary logical implications for the holy mother of God who was kecharitomene and always did His will and advised others to "do whatever He tells" is sad.

Rhology said...

What makes you think I was mocking?

What was theologically wrong, from the Roman POV, with this prayer?

Mike Burgess said...

If you received special revelation to the effect that James and EA are eternally perseverant, not much. They would then have a different degree of glory, and thus it would not be appropriate to render them hyperdulia. It is inappropriate for me to speculate as to whether your use of honorific titles reserved for Mary at the beginning of your prayer indicate such a misapplication. But A) noone is bound to accept such a private revelation although you may privately offer such a prayer given such an occurrence, B)this may very well constitute the sin of presumption which is indicative of pride incommensurate with true humility and C) given the totality of the circumstances, I feel comfortable rejecting any sincerity on your part.

Mike Burgess said...

I'll leave you on your honor to assert unequivocally that you were not mocking. I doubt very much that you will sincerely do so. Reticence will indicate an answer to your question as well.

Rhology said...

This is a *blog*, man. How does one measure reticence in sthg so insignificant as that?

At any rate, this post for Monday is meant to illustrate the ludicrous nature of the usual Romanist/Eastern claim that praying to saints is comparable to asking a living person to pray for you.
Clearly they are not equivalent.

Lvka said...

Rho,

it's not over until the fat lady sings. :-) We're not out of the woods yet. :-) We're still here, fighting the battle. And we may either win or lose. The jury is still out. :-) So, if You want to ask us to pray for You, then adress us with words that are true: >brothers in Christ, please pray to God for me the sinner<, and if we want to, maybe we will, 'cause us little sinners have to stay together, because there's a mighty battle waging against us even in our souls, minds, hearts, and flesh. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth very much indeed (James 5:16-18), but we're not that:

We are not all-holy; we weren't the ones that deemed You worthy for Communion (that was Christ and all the Armies of Angels and hosts of Saints that were there in spirit when You delivered Your confession to the Priest); we aren't exactly either hope, or shelter, or refuge, or consolation to You; we don't exactly know the true Light, even though we may know many things "about" it; we didn't give birth to Christ so that we may be Fountains of Life; we can't really illumninate Your noetic eyes while ours are still yet darkened (Matthew 15:14; Luke 6:39); we can't quicken You either except perhaps by our simple prayers and advices (James 5:19-20); we aren't compassionate; we aren't loving; we aren't true servants of God either, for reasons that I'm not too fond of mentioning here; we cannot grant You what we don't possess ourselves either (such as humility and contrition of heart, and meekness in my thoughts, and deliverance from the bondage of my vain imaginings, or tears of repentance and confession).

You may praise the Saints in all ways imaginable since it's the right thing to do (Psalm 68:35-36 LXX), and because they've already achieved engodment (Psalms 82:6; John 10:34), a significant part of which is dispassion (Numbers 23:19) and liking to the heart of Christ (Matthew 11:29). When You ask someone who's *still* fighting the good fight (1 Timothy 6:12; 2 Timothy 4:7), don't do this with words that might and will tempt him with pride. Say simply: >bretheren, please pray for me a sinner<.

Rhology said...

bretheren (sic), please pray for me a sinner

Why not just pray to Mary that way? Why extend the blasphemy as far as you do? It's bad enough you pray to a dead person; must you use all that elaborate praise language too? It's disgusting.

Mike Burgess said...

Alan,
Grieving the Holy Spirit is not insignificant in any forum. Would it have been better to mock him in a non-public forum? In your bedroom? If you weren't mocking, say so clearly now. You know you were, everyone reading knows you were and that you intended to do so, which is why you're being evasive when called on it.

Examine your conscience and pray, rather, that you were in the position of the Roman soldiers who mocked Jesus out of ignorance and will receive His forgiveness in spite of yourself.

Rhology said...

Evasive? No, I don't think anyone doubts that this is mockery.

How in the world am I grieving the Holy Spirit? By defending His and the Father's and Son's place as the only rightful recipient of the prayers of a sinful person? Reserving my "you accted me worthy"s and my "grant me humility"s and my "that I may hymn you and glorify you all the days of my life, for blessed and glorified are you unto all ages"s for God?

Pardon me!!!

Mike Burgess said...

I have no doubt whatsoever of the sincerity of your desire to "defend His and the Father's and Son's place as the only rightful recipient of the prayers of a sinful person," but by denying that work of the Holy Spirit in Mary's life which allows the Church to honor her in the ways we do, you are not only not defending His place, you are denying what Scripture teaches (as per the citations I cited above, e.g.).

God alone is by nature sinless. God alone is by nature worthy of honor, glory, praise, and dominion. He graciously bestows these gifts upon His creatures who are in His image and likeness. See Ephesians 1:3-14. Praising the holy work He has done, as Luka pointed out, is Scriptural, and it glorifies Him. Praising and seeking the intercession of the saints, especially Mary, is to His credit and glory. Magnifying His works magnifies Him. This is straight out of Mary's prayer at the Angel Gabriel's Annunciation, which is itself a song hearkening back to prior Scriptural prayers of other holy women. Your disgust is as misguided as the disgust Saul the Persecutor felt for the honorifics which were applied to Jesus. Those whom Saul persecuted were united to Jesus in their martyrdom such that Jesus encountered Saul with a personal identification. You do not need my pardon. Again, I urge you to examine your conscience and bring all before the throne of His mercy and grace.

Paul Hoffer said...

Hello Rhology, I haven't been following this blog lately--too busy with work---but it would appear from your prayer here, the comments that you have made subsequent that you are not mocking, and the y'alls that you include in your prayer (I am from Southern Ohio originally-we invented the contraction)that you are sincerely asking for folks to engage in intercessory prayer for you. I will do so during my Holy Hour prayers I do for special intentions this Thursday evening albeit in a less effusive and flowery manner than how you asked Mr. Swan and EA. I must admit that I am somewhat puzzled at your choice of words given your religious affiliations, but after attending a Presbyterian service this weekend with the local men's chorus I sing with and singing Ave Maria during the liturgy at the request of the minister, I can no longer claim surprise to see Protestants use older patristic prayer styles. I will warn you though that since we are not in heaven at this point of time unlike the Ever Blessed Virgin Mary, I do not know how effective the prayers of Mr. Swan, or EA, or mine for that matter, will be to mediate with God, Our Father, to help Him grant what you are asking in your prayer, but God willing, He will grant you what you ask here as a result of our combined intercessory prayers.

To all: Rhology's prayer here should remind us that no Christian should ever be afraid to to ask our brothers and sisters in Christ, whether they are here with us still on earth or in heaven with Our Lord, to pray for us.

BTW, have you ever read how legal documents/pleadings were worded a thousand years ago? I think you would be surprised to see the similarities between them and the prayer format you imitate here.

God bless and I truly hope that Our Holy Father in Heaven will grant you everything the prayer you wrote contains! Amen!

Rhology said...

I said:
No, I don't think anyone doubts that this is mockery.

I stand corrected.
Paul, this post is meant as mockery.
Obviously the irony of it was lost on you. I don't have the heart to make it much plainer today. The "Sunday" post is an example of an absolutely disgusting prayer, using terminology that should be reserved for God alone. And in this post I'm reflecting the common Romanist claim that praying to saints is just like "I pray you, pray for me, brother" language we use with friends in the church. So I'm just doing the same prayer to James and EA. It's taking that idea to its logical conclusion.



Mike Burgess said:
by denying that work of the Holy Spirit in Mary's life

Where did I do that?
I deny simply that she's the Queen of Heaven and all that stuff.
Never did I, nor would I, deny the work of the HS in her life, as described in Scr.
Don't set up a false dilemma, now.


you are denying what Scripture teaches

Oh? I missed the Scr psgs that justify making those statements about Mary.


God alone is by nature sinless.

Um, doesn't Rome teach that the BVM was saved from her sin nature from the beginning? Sounds like she is also by nature sinless.


Praising and seeking the intercession of the saints, especially Mary, is to His credit and glory.

Maybe we could let God tell us how much He likes that, in His Word, rather than putting words in His mouth.


Your disgust is as misguided as the disgust Saul the Persecutor felt for the honorifics which were applied to Jesus.

Now Mary is deity. Sheesh. Does this never end?

Mike Burgess said...

"Where did I do that?"

Read all of your previous posts.

"Oh? I missed the Scr psgs that justify making those statements about Mary."

Read all of my previous posts. (Ephesians 1, 2 Timothy 2:12, 2 Peter 1:4, 1 John 3:2, etc., etc., etc.)

"Um, doesn't Rome teach that the BVM was saved from her sin nature from the beginning? Sounds like she is also by nature sinless."

Sounds like you don't care to truthfully represent others. She was preserved free from all stain of sin by grace, through the Immaculate Conception bestowing perfectly on her the donum superadditum. Look it up. She received her nature graciously. She is not "by nature" sinless as though uncreated.

"Maybe we could let God tell us how much He likes that, in His Word, rather than putting words in His mouth."

Again, we did. Read carefully. Read the references to Psalms, the Magnificat, etc., etc., etc.

"Now Mary is deity."

Not at all. Pay attention. You simply do not appear to have given any effort to understanding theosis. Union with Christ, and here specifically Mary's completed and unique (and need I reiterate again, gracious) union with Christ entitles her to all of those Scriptural titles I mentioned and then some. You simply don't want to address the actual position of your target, you'd rather ignorantly bang like a cymbal and clang like a gong.

"Sheesh. Does this never end?"

I was wondering the same about you.

Rhology said...

2Ti 2:12 If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us;

2Pe 1:3 seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence.
2Pe 1:4 For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of {the} divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.

1Jo 3:2 Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is.


Eph 1:3 Blessed {be} the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly {places} in Christ,
Eph 1:4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love
Eph 1:5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,
Eph 1:6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.
Eph 1:7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace
Eph 1:8 which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight
Eph 1:9 He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him
Eph 1:10 with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, {that is,} the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him
Eph 1:11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,
Eph 1:12 to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory.
Eph 1:13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,
Eph 1:14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of {God's own} possession, to the praise of His glory.


Sounds good, but I don't see Mary in there. All believers are in view.
James and EA are both partakers of the divine nature, since they've been justified by God, adopted, etc. So I don't know what problem you have with my prayer here.

Rhology said...

She is not "by nature" sinless as though uncreated.

That's not what you said.
If you have to be as precise as this, then be that precise from the beginning.

Mike Burgess said...

"It seems to me that you haven't the faintest notion of what St. Paul, e.g., was talking about. His writings are replete with the implications of union with Christ, specifically participating in His reign with Him (2 Timothy 2:12). You don't have even an inkling of what St. Athanaius was explicating when he said that we are made by grace what He is by nature when we come fully into union with Him."

From the beginning of my remarks. It isn't my fault that you don't understand important distinctions.

Mike Burgess said...

"Sounds good, but I don't see Mary in there. All believers are in view.
James and EA are both partakers of the divine nature, since they've been justified by God, adopted, etc. So I don't know what problem you have with my prayer here."

I see Mary in the class of "all believers." She certainly was one, and she certainly is in heaven now, therefore... oh, but I can almost imagine the coming retort: "Who says? It's not in the Bible." Please, I'd rather be incorrect about whether I'm going to hear that. Not even you would argue she's in Hell, would you?

Plus, I said "and then some." She gets more. I'll let you figure out where, and why. Show your work. No calculators.

James and EA are being made partakers of the divine nature, assuming they were validly baptized. They presumably don't partake of the Catholic Eucharist, so they aren't being made partakers that way. Ditto reconciliation/penance. (The covenanting God does with us is in the form of the "promises" [ epaggelmata 1 Peter 1:4] attached to sacramental signs.) They aren't yet perfected because they haven't persevered to the end. They aren't completely holy and thus aren't wholly united with Christ. They are "children of God," but "it has not yet appeared as [they] will be," so I again reiterate my reluctance to see you render dulia (and certainly the hyperdulia reserved for the Theotokos) to them (in your hypothetical, mocking prayer). The prayer of a righteous man availeth much, said St. James. Noone is more righteous than the saints in heaven. Noone is more alive than they are, Mark 12:27. See also the Transfiguration narratives, Matthew 17:2ff, Mark 9:2ff. Because, you know, it's forbidden to talk to dead people like Moses and Elijah. (Gosh, I mean no created being of course; I sure don't want you thinking I don't think God's righteous or that He's not alive. 'Cause I'm expecting that one now.)

Just so you didn't think I was ignoring your replies. I missed this comment earlier today.

Rhology said...

I see Mary in the class of "all believers."

No, that's MY line.
You see her as all believers PLUS something else.
That's why you're objecting to my praying this prayer to James and EA, two fellow believers. You believe there's sthg else about Mary, which makes it OK to express a desire to glorify her for all eternity.


Not even you would argue she's in Hell, would you?

No.


I'll let you figure out where, and why

In other words, make your argument for you. Let me think about that one...


They aren't yet perfected because they haven't persevered to the end.

"...and those He justified, He also glorified."


They aren't completely holy

"There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."
Apparently we're going to get into a discussion of salvation now. Maybe it would be good to leave it alone right here - you are apparently too obstinate to see the that which is obvious and that which my two posts illustrate.


Because, you know, it's forbidden to talk to dead people like Moses and Elijah

Where did anyone ever do that besides that one time?
Where did Jesus or Scr teach us to repeat that incident?
Where did Jesus or Scr teach us to talk to dead people?

Mike Burgess said...

"No, that's MY line.
You see her as all believers PLUS something else.
That's why you're objecting to my praying this prayer to James and EA, two fellow believers. You believe there's sthg else about Mary, which makes it OK to express a desire to glorify her for all eternity."

Just because she's more than [set A] does not mean she is not also [set A]. This is so elementary, it's absurd you're attempting to retort in that way. But as to the completion and perfection you attempt to bring into play for your argument, [set A] does not meet those criteria. The same Paul who wrote Romans 8 that you quoted had just written Romans 7:14-25.
"14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin."

Not even Paul considered himself totally transformed and completely sanctified. He is addressing, in the next verse, 8:1, the issue of "those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit," which last part you conveniently left out. None of you walk perfectly according to the Spirit, and neither do any of us.

Need I remind you of Paul's words of warning in Hebrews 6?

"Apparently we're going to get into a discussion of salvation now. Maybe it would be good to leave it alone right here - you are apparently too obstinate to see the that which is obvious and that which my two posts illustrate."

Maybe it would be good for you to quit wrenching things out of context to fit into your Reformed presuppositions. You apparently are too obstinate to see that your prooftexts don't mean what you say they do, which is possibly a consequence of the sin of presumption. Only God knows.

"Where did anyone ever do that besides that one time?"

Once is enough to give the lie to y'all's constant refrain.

"Where did Jesus or Scr teach us to repeat that incident?"

In and through the Church He established and gave His authority to.

"Where did Jesus or Scr teach us to talk to dead people?"

Same place. Except that, again, the ones we're authorized to talk to aren't dead. They're alive. More alive than we are. Because they irreversibly have Christ's life.

Mike Burgess said...

Oh, yeah...

"In other words, make your argument for you. Let me think about that one..."

Don't hurt yourself. I don't need to have you make my case for me. But you, like the rich young ruler's brothers, have not only Moses and the Prophets, but the New Testament, too. What good would it do to send the Apostles or their successors to you? You wouldn't hear them, either. Or would you? Email me for a lengthy presentation of "my case" for the Marian doctrines and support. I bet I won't hear from you. Prove me wrong. Or don't.

Rhology said...

Just as I thought, we're in salvation now.

Need I remind you of Paul's words of warning in Hebrews 6?

Perhaps you think that someone who falls away can never come back, as the verse says...


Except that, again, the ones we're authorized to talk to aren't dead.

Just like the people that in OT Israel they weren't supposed to talk to, I guess.

Rhology said...

Oh absolutely, I'm in the mood for some laughs. Check your inbox.