Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Mel Gibson  (Read 5564 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Incredulous

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7919
  • Reputation: +7726/-774
  • Gender: Male
Re: Mel Gibson
« Reply #30 on: June 25, 2022, 09:40:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Referring to the feet of the saints/church in Rome is what I already said. Tell that to Incredulous who said it was exclusive to Mary.
    This the first time, I've come across someone trying to defend such an obscure theological notion.

    One of the main themes in Martin Luther's rebellion was to make the Virgin Mary a footnote in Scriptures.

    Luther's children of error, cannot comprehend the Virgin's role in Salvation history?

    In a recent conversation with a protestant, he explained to me that "grace" was "conveyed" by Jesus Christ.

    He could not fathom that God arranged for all graces are dispensed by the Virgin.  This is the protestants main theological defect.

    Gibson's serpent scene plays to Protestantism by symbolically excluding the Virgin from her exclusive role.
    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

    Offline buxtehude

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 21
    • Reputation: +1/-23
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Mel Gibson
    « Reply #31 on: June 25, 2022, 10:21:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • It can be confusing, but do you think that St John was missing your fuller and more complete picture of Scripture?
    To summarize what you have said: "St John mentions a war between the devil and Christians, therefore the devil is only seeking to harm Christians."

    This is the fallacy of hasty generalization. Just because St John mentions a war between the devil and the saints does not mean that the devil is also not leading astray, further perverting and destroying mankind as a whole too.

    St. Paul speaks of the wicked Jєωs that they are "contrary to all men":
    "Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost."

    How much more then is the spiritual father of those wicked Jєωs the devil contrary to all men?


    Offline buxtehude

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 21
    • Reputation: +1/-23
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Mel Gibson
    « Reply #32 on: June 26, 2022, 01:44:16 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • This the first time, I've come across someone trying to defend such an obscure theological notion.

    One of the main themes in Martin Luther's rebellion was to make the Virgin Mary a footnote in Scriptures.

    Luther's children of error, cannot comprehend the Virgin's role in Salvation history?

    In a recent conversation with a protestant, he explained to me that "grace" was "conveyed" by Jesus Christ.

    He could not fathom that God arranged for all graces are dispensed by the Virgin.  This is the protestants main theological defect.

    Gibson's serpent scene plays to Protestantism by symbolically excluding the Virgin from her exclusive role.

    Why are you replying to my reply to someone else and not my reply to you?

    You've conveniently avoided addressing Romans 16:20 which falsifies your claim of Mary's exclusivity in treading underfoot the serpent.

    "And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen." - Romans 16:20

    Online Miser Peccator

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2698
    • Reputation: +1228/-190
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Mel Gibson
    « Reply #33 on: June 26, 2022, 04:38:41 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • To summarize what you have said: "St John mentions a war between the devil and Christians, therefore the devil is only seeking to harm Christians."

    This is the fallacy of hasty generalization. Just because St John mentions a war between the devil and the saints does not mean that the devil is also not leading astray, further perverting and destroying mankind as a whole too.

    St. Paul speaks of the wicked Jєωs that they are "contrary to all men":
    "Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost."

    How much more then is the spiritual father of those wicked Jєωs the devil contrary to all men?
    I didn't downvote you.  I don't mind honest discussion but you misunderstand me.

    You could argue that Satan like the Jєωs are at war with all humanity, but with a specific reason and goal in mind...

    We were discussing if St Jerome's DR translation about "THE WOMAN" crushing Satan's head is correct and St John shows us that it is.

    St John doesn't just "mention war between the devil and Christians".

    He is specifically speaking about enmity between Satan and "THE WOMAN" from Genesis 3 which he quotes verbatim.


    He explains again and again who "THE WOMAN" of Geneis 3 is in Apocalypse 12.

    A Queen with a crown of stars appears in Heaven and gives birth:

    Apoc 12
    [5] And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.

    Would that Queen in Heaven be Eve?  Would her man child be Abel?  Is Abel to rule all nations?  Is Abel taken up to God to his throne?

    Clearly that is Mary and Jesus, right?


    St John says several times that Satan is at enmity with the WOMAN (just like Gen 3)  and is angry at her and does war with her. 

    Why is he so angry with her?  What exactly did she do to Satan anyway?


    [13] And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman, who brought forth the man child

    So Satan persecutes Mary? 

    Why would he want to persecute Mary

    What on earth did she do to him?



    [17] And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

    Man...once again,  Satan is really angry with "THE WOMAN"

    and clearly that woman is Mary.  

    Why is Satan so angry with Mary?


    Out of all of humanity, why do you think Satan is angry against her specifically?

    What exactly did she do to Satan?



    And who exactly are her seed?

    Are her seed all of humanity?

    Why does Satan specifically wage war against her seed?

    Are you one of her seed?

    How do you become one of her seed?

    Are her seed the elect?

    What is the difference between her seed and Eve's decendants?

    Note: Eve doesn't have "seed".  Adam does.  Further evidence that the enmity between Satan and the "WOMAN's" seed in Gen 3 is referring to Mary.

    Quote
    "Identification of the "seed of the woman" with Jesus goes back at least as far as Irenaeus (180 AD),[13][14] who along with several other Church Fathers regarded this verse as "the first messianic prophecy in the Old Testament".[15] Serapion, the Bishop of Thmuis, wrote the following:

    The woman does not have seed, only man does. How then was that (Gen 3:15) said of the Woman? Is it not evident that there is here question of Christ, whom the holy Virgin brought forth without seed? As a matter of fact, the singular is used, "of the seed," and not the plural, "of the seeds." The seed of the woman is referred to again in Revelation 12:17.[16]"



    What did Satan say to God?  No. My will be done.

    What did Eve say to God?  No.  My will be done.

    Satan seduced Eve but she consented with her free will.

    Eve and all of her descendants are on the side of Satan from then on.

    Satan has Eve and her descendants "in the bag" so to speak. 

    "Game over.  I win. Hehe."



    What did Mary say to God?  "Yes, Lord.  Thy will be done."

    Her seed does likewise.

    Her seed are no longer on the side of Satan.

    Mary is the "New Eve".  

    Her FIAT reversed Eve's "my will be done".

    Without Mary's "yes" there would be no Jesus and no Christians.



    Do the Jєωs want anyone to become one of her seed?  No.

    Are the Jєωs like Satan at enmity with Mary and her seed?  Yes.

    Can they try to do a preemptive strike against her seed?  Yes.


    Are they simply at war with Eve and all humanity

    or are they more specifically like Satan,

    at war with "THE WOMAN" (Mary) and

    those who will become one of her seed?


    They are "contrary to all men"

    but with a specific goal in mind.

    They, like Satan, do not want humanity to become the seed of Mary.

    Her fiat, her "yes" crushed Satan's head and he is forever at war

    WITH HER

    and her seed.


    Here is more:


    [color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]Mary prophesied in the Old Testament[/color]
    [color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]The Old Testament refers to Our Blessed Lady both in its prophecies and its types or figures.[/color]
    Genesis 3:15
    [color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]The first prophecy referring to Mary is found in the very opening chapters of the Book of Genesis (3:15): "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed; she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel." This rendering appears to differ in two respects from the original Hebrew text:[/color]
    [color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)](1) First, the Hebrew text employs the same verb for the two renderings "she shall crush" and "thou shalt lie in wait"; the Septuagint renders the verb both times by terein, to lie in wait; Aquila, Symmachus, the Syriac and the Samaritan translators, interpret the Hebrew verb by expressions which mean to crush, to bruise; the Itala renders the terein employed in the Septuagint by the Latin "servare", to guard; St. Jerome [1] maintains that the Hebrew verb has the meaning of "crushing" or "bruising" rather than of "lying in wait", "guarding". Still in his own work, which became the Latin Vulgate, the saint employs the verb "to crush" (conterere) in the first place, and "to lie in wait" (insidiari) in the second. Hence the punishment inflicted on the serpent and the serpent's retaliation are expressed by the same verb: but the wound of the serpent is mortal, since it affects his head, while the wound inflicted by the serpent is not mortal, being inflicted on the heel.[/color]


    [color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)](2) The second point of difference between the Hebrew text and our version concerns the agent who is to inflict the mortal wound on the serpent: our version agrees with the present Vulgate text in reading "she" (ipsa) which refers to the woman, while the Hebrew text reads hu' (autos, ipse) which refers to the seed of the woman. According to our version, and the Vulgate reading, the woman herself will win the victory; according to the Hebrew text, she will be victorious through her seed. In this sense does the Bull "Ineffabilis" ascribe the victory to Our Blessed Lady. The reading "she" (ipsa) is neither an intentional corruption of the original text, nor is it an accidental error; it is rather an explanatory version expressing explicitly the fact of Our Lady's part in the victory over the serpent, which is contained implicitly in the Hebrew original. The strength of the Christian tradition as to Mary's share in this victory may be inferred from the retention of "she" in St. Jerome's version in spite of his acquaintance with the original text and with the reading "he" (ipse) in the old Latin version.[/color]
    [color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]As it is quite commonly admitted that the Divine judgment is directed not so much against the serpent as against the originator of sin, the seed of the serpent denotes the followers of the serpent, the "brood of vipers", the "generation of vipers", those whose father is the Devil, the children of evilimitando, non nascendo (Augustine). [2] One may be tempted to understand the seed of the woman in a similar collective sense, embracing all who are born of God. But seed not only may denote a particular person, but has such a meaning usually, if the context allows it. St. Paul (Galatians 3:16) gives this explanation of the word "seed" as it occurs in the patriarchal promises: "To Abraham were the promises made and to his seed. He saith not, and to his seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to his seed, which is Christ". Finally the expression "the woman" in the clause "I will put enmities between thee and the woman" is a literal version of the Hebrew text. The Hebrew Grammar of Gesenius-Kautzsch [3] establishes the rule: Peculiar to the Hebrew is the use of the article in order to indicate a person or thing, not yet known and not yet to be more clearly described, either as present or as to be taken into account under the contextual conditions. Since our indefinite article serves this purpose, we may translate: "I will put enmities between you and a woman". Hence the prophecy promises a woman, Our Blessed Lady, who will be the enemy of the serpent to a marked degree; besides, the same woman will be victorious over the Devil, at least through her offspring. The completeness of the victory is emphasized by the contextual phrase "earth shall thou eat", which is according to Winckler [4] a common old-oriental expression denoting the deepest humiliation [5].


    [/color]https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm






























    Offline DecemRationis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1238
    • Reputation: +393/-108
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Mel Gibson
    « Reply #34 on: June 26, 2022, 06:22:16 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Extensive discussion of the "Hebrew Bible" fraud: http://judaism.is/hebrew-bible.html

    Thank you. Very, very informative. 
    Non enim omnes qui ex Israel sunt, ii sunt Israelitae (Roman 9:6)


    Offline DecemRationis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1238
    • Reputation: +393/-108
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Mel Gibson
    « Reply #35 on: June 26, 2022, 06:33:24 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

  • Why are you replying to my reply to someone else and not my reply to you?

    You've conveniently avoided addressing Romans 16:20 which falsifies your claim of Mary's exclusivity in treading underfoot the serpent.

    "And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen." - Romans 16:20

    If her seed bruises Satan, then she bruises Satan. Genesis 3:15 says as much (particularly with the commentary of Apoc 12), since the "enmities" are between Satan and "the woman" and "her seed" - if they "crush," she "crushes":

    Quote
    Gen 3:15 -I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

    Apoc 12:17-18 And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.









    Non enim omnes qui ex Israel sunt, ii sunt Israelitae (Roman 9:6)

    Offline buxtehude

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 21
    • Reputation: +1/-23
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Mel Gibson
    « Reply #36 on: June 26, 2022, 06:49:45 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • St John doesn't just "mention war between the devil and Christians".

    He is specifically speaking about enmity between Satan and "THE WOMAN" from Genesis 3 which he quotes verbatim.
    You made a generalization about the Devil not Mary so the emphasis or presence of Mary does not undo the fallacious logic:

    "St John mentions a war between the devil and Mary + saints, therefore the devil is only seeking to harm Mary + saints."

    This is the fallacy of hasty generalization. Just because St John mentions a war between the devil and Mary + saints does not mean that the devil is also not leading astray, further perverting and destroying mankind as a whole too.

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1238
    • Reputation: +393/-108
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Mel Gibson
    « Reply #37 on: June 26, 2022, 07:02:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • He didn't need Mary. God doesn't need anyone or anything, but He chose Mary because she passed the Litmus Test in her life . . . God could've entered the world in any way but He chose Mary because she passed where everyone else failed.

    You make it sound like what Mary's "work" came first. As if God looked "down the corridors of time," and said, "hey, lookie at this perfect woman, let me make her the mother of my Son." I disagree strongly with that.

    Like all of the elect, she was endowed by God with saving graces that preceded anything she did or her own merits (see Haydock note on Ephesians 1 attached).His gracing caused the subsequent merits, efficaciously caused them.

    She was predestined inexorably by the hand of God. She succeeded where "everyone else failed" because she was "endowed" with special graces (e.g., her immaculate conception) that none of the other elect were given. See attached pages from Fr. Garrigou Lagrange, The Mother of the Saviour.
    Non enim omnes qui ex Israel sunt, ii sunt Israelitae (Roman 9:6)


    Offline Incredulous

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7919
    • Reputation: +7726/-774
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Mel Gibson
    « Reply #38 on: June 26, 2022, 01:39:03 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!2
  • You made a generalization about the Devil not Mary so the emphasis or presence of Mary does not undo the fallacious logic:

    "St John mentions a war between the devil and Mary + saints, therefore the devil is only seeking to harm Mary + saints."

    This is the fallacy of hasty generalization. Just because St John mentions a war between the devil and Mary + saints does not mean that the devil is also not leading astray, further perverting and destroying mankind as a whole too.
    Bux-babe,

    Are you just another covert protestant trolling a trad Catholic forum?

    :popcorn:
    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

    Offline josefamenendez

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3112
    • Reputation: +1934/-132
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Mel Gibson
    « Reply #39 on: June 26, 2022, 05:51:13 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • You make it sound like what Mary's "work" came first. As if God looked "down the corridors of time," and said, "hey, lookie at this perfect woman, let me make her the mother of my Son." I disagree strongly with that.

    Like all of the elect, she was endowed by God with saving graces that preceded anything she did or her own merits (see Haydock note on Ephesians 1 attached).His gracing caused the subsequent merits, efficaciously caused them.

    She was predestined inexorably by the hand of God. She succeeded where "everyone else failed" because she was "endowed" with special graces (e.g., her immaculate conception) that none of the other elect were given. See attached pages from Fr. Garrigou Lagrange, The Mother of the Saviour.
    Proverbs 8 is traditionally applied to Our Lady as the person referred to  as "created being" which would eliminate The Uncreated second person of the Most Holy Trinity as the subject. The Proverb also refers to "Wisdom" as subject of the proverb, as our Lady's title is also of "Seat of Wisdom".

    30 I was with him forming all things: and was delighted every day, playing before him at all times;
    31 Playing in the world: and my delights were to be with the children of men.
    32 Now therefore, ye children, hear me: Blessed are they that keep my ways.
    33 Hear instruction and be wise, and refuse it not.
    34 Blessed is the man that heareth me, and that watcheth daily at my gates, and waiteth at the posts of my doors.
    35 He that shall find me, shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord:
    36 But he that shall sin against me, shall hurt his own soul. All that hate me love death.


    Offline Nadir

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9634
    • Reputation: +5250/-452
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Mel Gibson
    « Reply #40 on: June 26, 2022, 07:35:44 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • You made a generalization about the Devil not Mary so the emphasis or presence of Mary does not undo the fallacious logic:

    "St John mentions a war between the devil and Mary + saints, therefore the devil is only seeking to harm Mary + saints."

    This is the fallacy of hasty generalization. Just because St John mentions a war between the devil and Mary + saints does not mean that the devil is also not leading astray, further perverting and destroying mankind as a whole too.

    “Mankind as a whole”, with the exception of those souls who have committed themselves to Jesus Christ, i.e. the Blessed Virgin Mary + the saints, is already in the clutches of the devil.

    Why would the devil need to lead astray those who are already astray?
    Help of Christians, guard our land from assault or inward stain,
    Let it be what God has planned, His new Eden where You reign.


    Offline Emile

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1666
    • Reputation: +1100/-76
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Mel Gibson
    « Reply #41 on: June 26, 2022, 08:22:21 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Bux-babe,

    Are you just another covert protestant trolling a trad Catholic forum?

    :popcorn:

    From this I would guess the answer is yes, but not very covert:



    Patience is a conquering virtue. The learned say that, if it not desert you, It vanquishes what force can never reach; Why answer back at every angry speech? No, learn forbearance or, I'll tell you what, You will be taught it, whether you will or not.
    -Geoffrey Chaucer

    Offline buxtehude

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 21
    • Reputation: +1/-23
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Mel Gibson
    « Reply #42 on: June 27, 2022, 01:15:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • “Mankind as a whole”, with the exception of those souls who have committed themselves to Jesus Christ, i.e. the Blessed Virgin Mary + the saints, is already in the clutches of the devil.

    Why would the devil need to lead astray those who are already astray?
    You are espousing the heresy known as eternal justification which falsely teaches that men are born justified. The truth instead is that men come into a state of justification at some point in the course of their lives. It is during the interim in which the devil with great enmity is trying to stop the gospel from reaching them. This is the enmity the Devil has toward man from the beginning in Genesis 3:
    "And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of
    thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed"

    Offline LeMond

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 102
    • Reputation: +50/-47
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Mel Gibson
    « Reply #43 on: June 27, 2022, 08:27:08 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You make it sound like what Mary's "work" came first. As if God looked "down the corridors of time," and said, "hey, lookie at this perfect woman, let me make her the mother of my Son." I disagree strongly with that.

    Like all of the elect, she was endowed by God with saving graces that preceded anything she did or her own merits (see Haydock note on Ephesians 1 attached).His gracing caused the subsequent merits, efficaciously caused them.

    She was predestined inexorably by the hand of God. She succeeded where "everyone else failed" because she was "endowed" with special graces (e.g., her immaculate conception) that none of the other elect were given. See attached pages from Fr. Garrigou Lagrange, The Mother of the Saviour.

    Right but Blessed Mary still had free will. In utilizing her free will of choosing God over sin, the grace bestowed upon her before the age of reason and even at the Immaculate Conception are not in vain. If she didn't have free will, she wouldn't have grace. She'd be no different than a programmed or mechanical being who is sentient. That is the strawman that the "Orthodox" create on the Catholic Faith, and why they erroneously reject the doctrine of her being full of grace. They reject truth out of ignorance due to a strawman. Grace must be accompanied by free will.  The most important variable of the equation was her free will to choose to remain in the state of full grace throughout her blessed life.

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1238
    • Reputation: +393/-108
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Mel Gibson
    « Reply #44 on: June 27, 2022, 01:23:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Right but Blessed Mary still had free will. In utilizing her free will of choosing God over sin, the grace bestowed upon her before the age of reason and even at the Immaculate Conception are not in vain. If she didn't have free will, she wouldn't have grace. She'd be no different than a programmed or mechanical being who is sentient. That is the strawman that the "Orthodox" create on the Catholic Faith, and why they erroneously reject the doctrine of her being full of grace. They reject truth out of ignorance due to a strawman. Grace must be accompanied by free will.  The most important variable of the equation was her free will to choose to remain in the state of full grace throughout her blessed life.

    No one here is denying "free will," properly understood.  I reject only certain rebellious assertions of libertarian free will  such as Arminian Prots hold, and many Catholics too unfortunately. 

    Pilate, Herod, etc., with regard to the Crucifixion of Our Lord, could not have acted differently; Our Blessed Mother also as to her "fiat." Yet they acted freely. To hold to that is to hold to a strict, orthodox, Thomistic sense of Predestination, Providence, and "free will." 

    I'd be happy to discuss this fully with you here, if you'd like:

    https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/god's-salvific-will-to-save-'all-men'-and-the-death-of-unbaptized-infants/msg733125/#msg733125

    Non enim omnes qui ex Israel sunt, ii sunt Israelitae (Roman 9:6)