Replies

Plus, you tell untruths.

...None of this is disputed by Protestant Scripture scholars, who are well aware of the Bible’s broad semantic range of "brother".

I am a "Protestant Scholar" having formal education on the subjects you broach. The untruth claim fails but you try to tell me that I am a liar.

What a crock! Nothing you posit is born out in a proper exegesis of Scripture. It can only be found by first listening to the "Roman Catholic cult" and then trying to isolate verses or phrases to justify their disconnect. The slander is coming from your group, not from Scripture.

Then you tell us that the "most likely scenario", yet nothing you posit even comes close to establishing your premise.

Good luck when it starts getting hot. No number of candles, nor repetitious words will get anybody out of hell! It is not by pleading to some demigoddess, but solely based on with in Jesus name.

I take this one (from Elsie's long, but certainly not complete, list of Roman Catholic error and heresy) passage to contrast with what Scripture details:

...in the words of St. Ambrose, "Open to us, O Mary, the gates of paradise, since Thou hast its keys." "Aperi nobis, O Virgo coelum, cujus claves habes." Nay more, the Church says, that "Thou art its gate."

But, contrary to Roman Catholic teaching, Jesus says:

John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know[b] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

WVKayaker:

One small but important point. If someone says that you have uttered that which is not true, in and of itself that is not an accusation of lying. Lying requires more, namely intention to lie. One may speak that which is untrue while merely being mistaken and not intending to lie.

You are a Reformed Christian. I and Mrs. Don-o are Catholics. If we were all in agreement on the meaning of Scripture, we would all be Reformed Christians or we would all be Catholic. It goes without saying that, instead, we have differences as to the meanings of many Scriptural passages. That does not make any of us "liars." Is it not perfectly possible to have what people of good will would call "good faith differences?"

I have not reviewed this entire exchange but a similar point may be made as to accusations that Catholics who disagree with Reformed Christianity are somehow guilty of slander which again involves knowing falsehood.

That you have a background as a "Protestant scholar" does ot make you infallible. That we Catholics disagree with your "scholarship" and its conclusions or that you disagree with Catholic "scholars" does not make either you or us "liars" or guilty of "slander." Ditto as to what constitute "proper exegesis of Scripture." Ditto as to accusations of heresy.

Before, anyone concludes otherwise, this post of mine is NOT an invitation to theological dispute or to chewing on the old Reformation vs. Counterreformation slippers but simply an observation as to civilized and accurate and respectful conversation among folks who are in disagreement as to matters of faith and Scripture. You don't have to be a "liar" to be a Reformed Christian. We don't have to be "liars" to be Catholics. If such matters simply MUST be discussed here among those who disagree with one another, perhaps we can all refrain from making accusations of moral turpitude in matters amounting to no more than theological differences as to belief.

WVKayaker, I very intentionally chose my words carefully so that I did *NOT* call you a liar. Why? Because that would imply moral fault. I merely said you repeated "untruths," because a person can pass on untruths innocently, if he or she believed them to be true and if he or she has been reasonably moral diligent in researching what is true and what is false.

I would not willingly insult you. I respect you too much for that.

Now, as to the untruth. If "worship" is equated with "adoration," and "adoration" means "the rendering of honor which is due to God alone" then no, Catholics do not "worship" Mary.

The difficulties you experience with the quotes you referenced (and there are many more) can be attributed, I think, to some combination of the following factors:

Christ associates us in His saving work. None of us have sufficiently considered the many ways in which Christ associates all of us --- not just Mary --- in His great work of salvation. Christ, Whose work is completed and all-sufficient, nevertheless graciously invites our participation, yes, even to experiencing His suffering and His Passion, not only in its painful aspect but also in its meaningful, efficacious and saving aspect. This is so frequently reiterated in Scripture I feel sure that examples will instantly present themselves to your mind.
Ours is a non-courtly culture. As 21st century Americans, none of us are entirely at home with the courtly language that permeates both Scripture and the vast body of devotional literature which was developed in a more courtly age.
For instance, as American individualists, we don't appreciate hierarchies --- and by this I mean, persons arrayed in ranks and orders--- even though Heaven is portrayed by St. John in courtly and hierarchical imagery, even to the distinct and ordered choirs of the heavenly host! So those who hate courtliness with its ordered, ascending levels of dignity (elders with thrones and crowns, Angels, Archangels, Cherubim and Seraphim, etc. etc.) and Mary Queen Mother, will hate heaven.
But no, I don't think you'll hate heaven. I think you'll see all this in joyful wonder, and rejoice that Christ is all in all.
The courtly and romantic genre of devotional language. This is an aspect of the above, but requires extra attention. It is a constitutive element of courtly language, that (1) the honor given to any member of the court, pertains to the sovereign, and (2) the emotionally outre is expected, since the fervent panegyric of the courtier is not the language of the legislator, the diplomat or the scholar.
This is true to a high degree in the devotional poetry of Christendom through the millennia, but it's even true of secular literature. You can find it in Elizabethan-era odes to the Queen, Spencerian and even Puritan (!!) poetry. (Anne Bradstreet and John Milton, for example.) Those who have ears to hear, I direct to this link on courtly language, which explains just the merest tad of what I'm talking about.
Going back to historic Christian ways of thinking about this, it's related to Basil: "The honor given to the icon is transferred (Siapaivei) to the prototype." A painting, for instance, is an icon of Mary. Mary herself is an icon of God (an image) to a wonderful degree, since she is a human being (created in the image and likeness of God) who has been freed by her Savior from all sin. Thus she --- hailed by a messenger from Heaven as"Kecharitomene", most highly favored, full of grace --- is an unclouded icon, as we all shall be when we are utterly freed from sin.
Bottom line: all honor given to Mary, the patriarchs, the prophets, the martyrs, confessors and virgins, holy men and women or any other persons, places or things which are images of God, is given to God, Who Alone is Holy and Who has made all things, each to reflect a beam of His glory.
Private RevelationSometimes people just confuse "private revelation" with Catholic doctrines, when nobody has to believe Private Revelation, not even the person to whom it is purportedly given.

This barely skims the surface. I always rejoice to see people who show they have tried to learn, to study, to understand, and to appreciate. We do not adore some demigoddess. We will say for eternity in Heaven what we say in every Mass:

"Glory to God in the Highest!
For you alone are the Holy One
You alone are the Lord.
You alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ,
With the Holy Spirit,
In he Glory of God the Father."

"Jesus, my Lord, my God, my All."

BTW, WVKayacker, let me benefit from your expertise. Could you suggest any Protestant scholars who have written on the significance of feminine types in the Psalms, the Proverbs, the Prophets, and the historical books of the OT? That would be of great interest to me.

WVKayaker:

See Mrs. Don-o's #251 as to the "liar" claim. She is precisely correct in saying that you say things that are not true. She DID NOT claim the additional factor of moral turpitude necessary to a claim that you have lied.

I agree with her claim that much of what you say is not true but I believe that you, in good faith, do not recognize your own statements as untrue. You believe what you believe, for good or for ill. I don't really care what you THINK Scripture means. Your opinions are utterly irrelevant to my Faith and beliefs.

Elsewhere you have made the remarkable claim that I have some responsibility to argue ONLY from Scripture. I have no such responsibility to argue with you at all much less ONLY from Scripture. "Sola Scriptura" or Sola Gratia" or "Sola Fide" were the reformation standards set by Luther and I have no obligation whatsoever to submit to his non-existent authority or yours.

I believe that civility has everything to do with good manners and nothing to do with Rodney King. I frequent Free Republic because I seek POLITICAL fellowship with fellow conservatives and not to nannynag those who disagree with me or with the Catholic Faith or to be nannynagged by them.

There are secular political issues, some having religious dimensions and some not on which I seek victory. Catholics will not win on these issues on our own without the help of others who are not Catholic and they won't win without Catholics.

Got gonads?