Solemnity of the Assumption

CatholicExchange.com ^ | 08-15-06 | Marcellino D'Ambrosio, Ph.D.

[FourtySeven]

It's the Feast of the Assumption already? Wow, time flies! :)

(just kidding of course...timely post given recent debates!)

[Salvation]

We ask Mary to pray for us. No worship (that is relegated to God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is involvled.

How many times have Catholics repeated this?

[Salvation]

You forgot the sarcasm tags there, right?

Praying to Mary and asking her to intercede for us with her Son is what you meant, I'm sure.

[FourtySeven]

Really old error [in the Church] is still error [in the Church].

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

So when did the Church fall to the gates of hell? The 16th century? The 4th Century? The 1st?

Of course it doesn't really matter when it did, because if you or anyone says that it did at any time, then Matt 16:18 is a lie. Or are you only saying that the Catholic Church has some error, but is still the original Church described in Matt 16:18?

[Salvation]

Oops
God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.

[trisham]

How many times have Catholics repeated this?

************

Since the intent of the disrupters is to cause dissension, it matters not.

[Lil Flower]

Sorry, LOL sarc/(for previous post)

[magisterium]

I don't like to be exclusionary either. But perhaps we should be (at least more than we are at present) on this forum. Threads like this one are clearly aimed at Catholics as catechesis, rather than aimed at everybody as apologetics or even intentional polemic. As such, it is much better to "caucus" the thread, not so much to entirely shut out non-Catholics, but to protect the subject matter from ridicule, defilement or debasement from those with an anti-Catholic axer to wield. Further, there is a very strong tendency in the anti-Catholic thread hijackings here to morph the subject matter into something entirely different.

Most likely, this thread we're on now will morph into yet another rehashing of the Sola Scriptura issue, on the grounds that "there is nothing in Scripture about the 'alleged' assumption of Mary." A strong sidebar to that argument will be the attempted defilement of Mary's Immaculate Conception. It is wrong fr us Catholics to subject the Mother of God to such debasements, even in the interests of "openness."

Just my descents, but I believe that threads like this one serve their purpose better when they're caucused. Many non-Catholics still read them, and honest, relevant questions can still be asked by them. But caucused threads are protected from hostile, sniping attacks and attempts to hijack their flow of discussion into irrelevancies. Irrelevancies are a real problem on the religion forum threads. Many non-Catholics, of late, are posting their own anti-Catholic threads and can't even stay on-point with their themes when they control the flow themselves. An example from today is this thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1773958/posts , where, by post 20, the discussion has gone off onto a generalized rehashing of the infallibility question, all but ignoring the so-called "Cadaver Synod" that the thread set out to discuss. Their tendency to go off topic is even stronger and more immediate with many threads posted by us.

I beg the Catholics of this forum to consider the following proposals seriously:

1) Caucus more of the threads where the subject matter is easily anticipated to be abused by non-Catholics. Informational articles written by Catholics for Catholics (as appropriate, sometimes the caucus could include the Orthodox, too) can be protected by caucusing, as long as they don't involve a compare-and-contrast style of presentation that highlights defiances with other beliefs. Those threads cannot be protected, and others have a right here to defend their own POV. A week on this forum should give anyone a flavor for what those subjects and presentation styles might be.

2) Don't post apologetics-based threads where the article is itself polemical and the subject matter has the potential to be dragged into the mud by others. It is a scandal to subject holy things to desecration in the middle of trying to defend them. This has happened endlessly on this forum, and is the primary reason I stopped posting nearly a year ago. If an article is somewhat hostile in tone but otherwise has good subject matter for presentation on this forum, then rework it in your own words into a vanity post that is "informational" rather than confrontational.

3) Catholics should ALWAYS caucus articles pointing out the stupidities, heresies, boorishness, etc. we have to put up with within the Catholic Church. Let's keep discussion of these things within our own group. The alternative scenario has consequences that should be obvious to anyone, certainly after seeing what happens on this forum in these and other matters.

4) When, in spite of caucusing, a thread is being hijacked anyway, or hostility manifests itself, we should be responding uniformly with "God bless you" in the face of hostility or "This thread is caucused and will not be hijacked. Your question/comment is palpably hostile and irrelevant to the topic matter. God bless you" in the case of attempted hijacking.

5) We comport ourselves on non-Catholic threads (even many hostile to Catholicism) much better than many other groups, and we should continue the good work there. We should never post venom-laced threads against others, and we should stop the occasional intramural mudslinging we can engage in with each other. Such things need to stop immediately, as they are a poor witness to the many lurkers trying to learn or honestly understand our beliefs, and create a palpable aura of "Catholic hypocrisy." Intensity is good, condemnations and mudslinging among our own are not. Pointing out errors in a charitable way is good, childish name-calling and character assassination are not. These are the only percept-able vices of the Catholics on this forum. We can do better in our efforts to present the Truths of the face in a way that does justice to the old pagan observation "See how those Christians love one another!"

I believe the implementation of these guidelines would create a net-gain in the effectiveness of the Catholic apostolate here on FR. Our case can be made without any of the acrimony, confusion and false-witness that invade our threads despite our honest intentions. Our own people can be better catechized in this fashion, and non-Catholics who have a good will about us would probably relish the chance to see what we have to say without wading through confusing maelstroms of jargon, misdirection and venom launching. The many expositors of the Faith here would probably relish the opportunity to contribute to honest discussion without having to rehash ENDLESSLY the same old nonsense every day, every week, every month. It gets old after a while, and most people have to work for a living besides! I'm sure that I, for one, would be happy to return to active participation on this forum if freed from the exasperating, crushing sense of sheer futility that responding on this forum can induce. I'm also sure I'm not alone in that!

I sincerely hope that the Catholics of this forum will consider holding up our end of FR in the spirit of these suggestions. Our current modus operandi is counterproductive at best and prone to unintended scandal relative to our holy beliefs at worst. God bless.

[Lil Flower]

I'm pretty sure that most non-catholics respect and admire Mary. We just don't worship her.

Neither do Catholics, but don't let the truth stop you from "bearing false witness". For that matter, don't let the commandment against "bearing false witness" stop you either.

What was that again about throwing stones? Oh I remember. Your just the onlooking coat holder. Continue on.

Worth repeating.

[magisterium]

Paragraph three: "descents" is "two-cents." Wow. Not enough sleep this week, I guess!

[mockingbyrd]

If you think that what we do for Mary is adoration, then I don't think you know what real adoration looks like. If you give God no more honor than we give Mary, you aren't giving God the honor he deserves, but a poor substitute for it.

Wow, you are so right, and yet somehow I never thought of it that way. Excellent point.

[ArrogantBustard]

Just absolutely brilliant. Thank you. I particularly agree with your point #2.

[ArrogantBustard]

Actually ... it was your point #1 I was thinking of ... not that there's anything wrong with #2.

[Iscool]

and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I'd like to see you explain that portion of the verse...What did Jesus mean when he said that???

[FourtySeven]

What did Jesus mean when he said [the gates of hell shall not prevail against {his church}]???

There are differing interpretations, although the general point is clear: The Church will not fall into apostasy, as a Body.

Some say it means that hell, Satan, etc, will not ENTER the Church.

Others say it means that "the gates of hell" cannot withstand the onslaught of truth promulgated BY the Church.

Either way the meaning is clear, and a problem for virtually every Protestant: The church instituted by Christ will NEVER fail. To suggest that the Church is "filled with error", and that some of this error is "really really old", as pjr12345 did, clearly contradicts Matt 16:18, IF pjr12345 (and others) suggest that this error disqualifies the Catholic Church from being the "church" mentioned in Matt 16:18. As I asked pjr12345, if such "really really old error" DIDN'T disqualify the CC, then can we still believe it's that same church mentioned in Matthew?

A corollary question is, if the CC did "fall to the gates of hell", then where is the "church" mentioned in 16:18?

If one answers, "that church is an invisible church, simply the body of believers", I respectfully submit that is an insufficient answer. That answer tells us nothing about what the "church" in Matt 16:18 is like, doctrinally speaking, and thus, opens the door to a WIDE variety of doctrinal missteps, chief among them is doubt in the Trinity. This is because if "belief" is all that's required for membership in the "body", then even the demons can be Christians.

[pjr12345]

"Queen of Heaven"
"Holy Mother of God"
"Co-Redeemer"
"Intercessor"
"Immaculate Conception"
"Assumption"
"Perpetual Virgin"
"Ave Maria"

Gee, these don't amount to adoration and worship!

Your claim that the RCC doesn't worship Mary is nothing more than I-voted-for-it-before-I-voted-against-it "logic".
.

[Campion]

Gee, these don't amount to adoration and worship!

No, they don't. Not even close. Let's look at a few.

"Intercessor"

Anyone who prays for someone else is an intercessor.

"Perpetual Virgin"

Lots of people are perpetual virgins. What is remotely worshipful about that observation?

"Co-Redeemer"

All of us are called to be co-redeemers, which is a shorthand way of saying "cooperators with the redeemer" in the salvation of souls. Observing that Mary fulfilled that vocation and is a good exemplar of it is worship? How?

"Ave Maria"

Did the Archangel Gabriel commit idolatry at the Annunciation?

As I say, I don't think you understand what real worship looks like.

[Lil Flower]

I have a question for you, although I must say I don't know why I bother. Why, when time after time, Catholics continually tell you and others that we do not worship Mary,or that the church does not teach for us to, do you continue to hang on to the lie? Or are you one of those conspiracy people that think we have all got together and decided to deceive the world? And please don't use the excuse that you have "seen" people do it. I see a Baptist here and there in the liquor store too, but I don't assume all Baptists are liars and they really do believe in drinking and just don't want the "rest of us" to know about.

I get so tired of people taking the bad behavior of some and then chosing to condemn a whole group of people because of it. I'm white, too. Does that mean I dress up in white sheets at night? Hardly

The Catholic Church does not teach to worship Mary, because to worship her would be a sin. It is also a sin to bear false witness, which you cannot seem to stop doing.

[Religion Moderator]

It is also a sin to bear false witness, which you cannot seem to stop doing.

Discuss the issues all you want, but do NOT make it personal.

Religion Forum Guidelines

[pjr12345]

Q: What is the difference between catholics praying to dead people and hindus praying to dead relatives?

A: Hindus will honestly tell you they worship their dead relatives as gods.

I don't understand it, but I recognize that many RCCers just can't see that all those shrines, statues, and burning candles in honor of dead people fits the biblical definition of idol worship to a tee. Rationalizing it away with spiritual gymnastics may make people feel better - even fool them - but it doesn't make it any less hated by God.