Posted on 12/08/2012 2:24:39 PM PST by NYer
Do Catholics worship Mary? This question is as old as the Protestant Reformation itself, and it rests, like other disputed doctrinal points, on a false premise that has been turned into a wedge: the veneration of Mary detracts from the worship of Christ.
This seeming opposition between Mary and Christ is symptomatic of the Protestant tendency, begun by Luther, to view the entirety of Christian life through a dialectical lens – a lens of conflict and division. With the Reformation the integrity of Christianity is broken and its formerly coherent elements are now set in opposition. The Gospel versus the Law. Faith versus Works. Scripture versus Tradition. Authority versus Individuality. Faith versus Reason. Christ versus Mary.
The Catholic tradition rightly sees the mutual complementarity of these elements of the faith, as they all contribute to our ultimate end – living with God now and in eternity. To choose any one of these is to choose them all.
By contrast, to assert that Catholics worship Mary along with or in place of Christ, or that praying to Mary somehow impedes Christ’s role as “the one mediator between God and men” (1 Tim 2:5) is to create a false dichotomy between the Word made flesh and the woman who gave the Word his flesh. No such opposition exists. The one Mediator entrusted his mediation to the will and womb of Mary. She does not impede his mediation – she helps to make it possible.
Within this context we see the ancillary role that the ancilla Domini plays in her divine Son’s mission. Mary’s is not a surrogate womb rented and then forgotten in God’s plan. She is physically connected to Christ and his life, and because of this she is even more deeply connected to him in the order of grace. She is, in fact, “full of grace,” as only one who is redeemed by Christ could be.
The feast of Mary’s Immaculate Conception celebrates the very first act of salvation by Christ in the world. Redemption is made possible for all by his precious blood shed on the cross. Yet Mary’s role in the Savior’s life and mission is so critical and so unique that God saw it necessary to wash her in the blood of the Lamb in advance, at the first moment of her conception.
This reality could not be more Biblical: the angel greets Mary as “full of grace” (Luke 1:28), which is literally rendered as “already graced” (kecharitōmenē). Following Mary, the Church has “pondered what sort of greeting this might be” for centuries. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception, ultimately defined in 1854, is nothing other than a rational expression of the angel’s greeting contained in Scripture: Mary is “already graced” with Christ’s redemption at the very moment of her creation.
Because God called Mary to the unique vocation of serving as the Mother of God, it is not just her soul that is graced, as is the case for us when we receive the sacraments. Mary’s entire being, body and soul, is full of grace so that she may be a worthy ark for the New Covenant. And just as the ark of the old covenant was adorned with gold to be a worthy house for God’s word, Mary is conceived without original sin to be the living and holy house for God’s Word.
Thus Mary is not only conceived immaculately, that is, without stain of sin. She also is the Immaculate Conception. Her entire being was specifically created by God with unique privilege so that she could fulfill her role in God’s plan of salvation. “Free from sin,” both original and personal, is the necessary consequence of being “full of grace.”
Protestants claim that veneration of Mary as it is practiced by Catholics is not biblical. St. Paul encouraged the Corinthians to “be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (1 Cor 11:1). Paul is not holding himself up as the end goal, but as a means to Christ, the true end. And if a person is imitated, he is simultaneously venerated.
If we should imitate Paul, how much more should we imitate Mary, who fulfilled God’s will to the greatest degree a human being could. Throughout her life she humbled herself so that God could be exalted, and because of this, Christ has fulfilled his promise by exalting his lowly mother to the seat closest to him in God’s kingdom.
Mary is the model of humility, charity, and openness to the will of God. She allows a sword to pierce her heart for the sake of the world’s salvation. She shows us the greatness to which we are called: a life free from sin and filled with God’s grace that leads to union with God in Heaven. She is the model disciple, and therefore worthy of imitation and veneration, not as an end in herself, but as the means to the very purpose of her – and our – existence: Christ himself.
God’s lowly handmaiden would not want it any other way.
And where do you find that? Plural no less.
In addition is the fact that RCs have the more liberal moral views, and while you as a layman (i presume) discount the majority of RCs as being so and long for the Inquisition to proscute them, the fact remains that the church you defend and promote treats the most "nominal" RCs as members in life and in death, even "manifest sinners" as Ted Kennedy being a notable example. For the meaning of canon can be interpreted differently by those who are to enforce it.
Former Catholics are vy that very fact in a state of sin that they need to wash away by confession and repentance, as well as any other unconfessed sin they accumulated on their conscience while away from the Church. Unless they publicly profess Catholicism, yet teach Protestantism (or any other falsity), they are not a subject for the Holy Inquisition, however, which is concerned with the state of Catholic priests primarily and Catholic lay teachers secondarily.
I worship Christ the way I know how; my Church teaches me. I do not take advice from "mortal humans" such as yourself.
The Bible is a higher authority than “The Church”.
See my #100.
I cannot parse the second paragraph in your post. Yes, I am a layman; yes, homosexuality or other sexual sin among the clergy must be prosecuted; no, mere leftwing views among the layfolk, or even among the priests are not matter for the Inquisition as such.
Well, no. The Church gave you the complete Bible under the dictation of the Holy Ghost, so the Holy Tradition of the Church is higher authority. But the Catholic Church and the Holy Bible are not at odds at all; it is the Protestants who should worry.
As a Catholic, I make no excuses for the abuse that happened in my Church. That said, this isn't a Catholic issue. It's a societal issue. Child sex abuse occurs EVERYWHERE in this society. Yes, it is a greater shame when it happens in churches or institutions that claim moral authority.
Here's a paragraph from the article Baptist Hide & Seek: "Baptist scholars confirm this: "The problem of clergy sexual abuse is not just a Catholic issue...Studies have shown no difference in its frequency by denomination, region, theology, or institutional structure." But while Catholics and most mainline Protestant denominations have developed national policies to deal with the problem, "decentralized denominations such as the Southern Baptist Convention...have no national policies" and "sexual misconduct is routinely covered up in these settings." Trull & Carter, Ministerial Ethics at p. 162 (2d ed. 2004)."
According to the article Baptist Identity: How It Masks Clergy Sex Abuse in the Southern Baptist Convention, the SBC doesn't keep records on clergy suspected of sexual abuse and has no process in place to warn congregants of reassigned clergy suspected of abuse.
I know a lot of good Baptists. I don't write this to be antiBaptist. I'm against child abuse. Wherever it occurs. And unfortunately it occurs in ALL denominations.
NaturalLaw said: every employee, catechist and volunteer in my diocese and every American diocese who deals as a representative of the Church with children and adults must receive mandatory safe environment training, be finger printed and a background check run. Policies and procedures prevent circumstances that might lead to abuse or even the opportunity for abuse. With additional processes and safeguards related to priests, I might add. Are you willing, bramps, to asks Baptists to take similar measures?
So do I along with a lot of good Protestants and Jews. I even know a number of good Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Jainists, and Muslims. Everything good is of God. The one thing we all have to accept is that Satan is at war with goodness where ever and when ever he finds it. Every war has its casualties. Clergy are specifically vulnerable because of the good work they do. Unlike some on these threads we should not rejoice when any clergy falls.
Peace be with you
You made the statement as a learned RC, and i find it strange you state something but do not know when it was forbidden.
And as the Catechism is not itself infallible, but a collection of non infallible and infallible teachings as a compendium of what the Church has always believed (though some RCs disagree this is true in every case), and submission enjoined (unless one cannot in good conscience), can you at least tell us where torture has been defined as forbidden in such a way that it could never have been valid or be sanctioned in the future?
Let us be reminded that the topic on hand is the Immaculate Conception of Mary, not the Holy Inquisition or child abuse.
This became an issue when you broadly asserted the Protestant faith was feeble, and the Catholic faith magnificent, thus the fruit of Rome and it morality versus its competition, that being evangelical faith to which it loses the most to, became an issue. And in response to which you invoked Inquisition as holy and thus its means and sanction thereof are under examination.
RE the 2nd paragraph,
the fact remains that the church you defend and promote treats the most “nominal” RCs as members in life and in death, “manifest sinners” as Ted Kennedy being a notable example.
For the meaning of canon law (as 1184 and 915) can be interpreted differently by those who are to enforce it.
So you admit you were wrong to make Luther a serial fornicator (nuns).
While as for Katharina, the charge of fornication rests upon the premise that marriage that is not sanctioned by Rome is fornication, which, considering the multitudes of RCs who have received annulments based on various grounds for them, potentially leaves multitude more RCs as living in fornication.
Get a lawyer indeed.
And it was not until 2 years after her escape that Luther married Katharina, after Luther at first had asked the parents and relations of the refugee nuns to admit them again into their houses, but which they declined to do, possibly as this was participating in a crime under canon law.
Thus a man who marries a virgin and remains with her till death is condemned by a church which counted sexual active popes as its head, and also condemned the belief that “if the Pope were reprobate and an evil man and consequently a member of the devil, he has no power over the faithful.”
In any case, i think we have been better persuaded to not think of men above that which is written.
You have a very inspiring way of enticing someone./s Perfect example of what I talked about. Catholics talk the talk but that's where it stops. I'd like to add another great example in the world of sports as I watch a Barcelona soccer game. So many of today's world class athlete's, after a goal, home run, etc., make a sign of the cross and look up to ‘God’. They're telling the world, “look at me, I'm a solid Catholic”. Meanwhile they're out having child after child out of wedlock and no one says a thing. They're applauded. But then you have many Christian golfers (NOT Tiger Woods), who simply go about their pro business, and they modestly thank their Lord after success. They have followed Christs word and it shows. Tim Tebow would be laughed at by Christians if he was having kids out of wedlock while claiming to be a Christian. But like Sarah Palin ( and I'd bet you'd agree but won't say), Tim Tebow radiates the pure good that comes with following Christ's word.
I've been in both churches and read Christ's word as to the path to the kingdom. You're a great example of a phony Catholic. Did you seriously want to convert me by using the word, 'foolishness' to describe being a Protestant? No, you just wanted to mock me. So thanks for the added assurance that I've chosen the correct path to follow.
Indeed, Mary received more that Protestants are willing to admit. The December 4th, 2012 edition of Scientific American contained an article entitled "Scientists Discover Children’s Cells Living in Mothers’ Brains". In the excerpt below we see that part of Jesus lived on in. It scientifically explains Church dogma regarding her sinlessness and Assumption:
"The link between a mother and child is profound, and new research suggests a physical connection even deeper than anyone thought. The profound psychological and physical bonds shared by the mother and her child begin during gestation when the mother is everything for the developing fetus, supplying warmth and sustenance, while her heartbeat provides a soothing constant rhythm."
"The physical connection between mother and fetus is provided by the placenta, an organ, built of cells from both the mother and fetus, which serves as a conduit for the exchange of nutrients, gasses, and wastes. Cells may migrate through the placenta between the mother and the fetus, taking up residence in many organs of the body including the lung, thyroid muscle, liver, heart, kidney and skin. These may have a broad range of impacts, from tissue repair and cancer prevention to sparking immune disorders."
Peace be with you.
While by dictation is not meant plenary mechanical dictation, without doing violence to plenary inspiration, your premise seems to be that being the instruments and stewards of holy writ makes you the assuredly infallible interpreters of it. And that assurance of Truth is only had by her infallible magisterium. Is that correct?
“As a Catholic, of course you don’t.”
Mind reading and making it personal are against the rules. And anyone who actually studies the Faith knows how wrong your claims are.
In Luke 11:27-28 someone venerates Mary, but does it with such a physiological focus "Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck" that Christ directs her attention to "all who hear the word of God, and keep it" Christ doesn't, however, repudiate the veneration of His mother in this episode.
Here, it is helpful to look at both verses together, a focus on Scripture.
As he said this, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!” 28 But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” Luke 11:27-28 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
As you see, Jesus is not pointing to Mary as a specific, elevated saint at all, but rather to the general blessed nature of all followers of Christ. He also did not say, "Blessed rather are those of my Apostles or friends who hear the word of God...", he let it as the comprehensive "those" without qualification. It could even be taken, because of "rather", or in some translations, "more than that", that Jesus was arguing against holding Mary out as above others.
In Acts 19:12, people are healed and evil spirits are cast out when pieces of Paul's clothing are brought to them.
And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, 12 so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them. Acts 19: 11-12 RSVCE
That's it. No where else will you see guidance to keep these items, nor any other mention of the use of relics by Paul in his epistles or those writings of any of the other Gospel writers. Doing so risks applying an almost talismanic significance to those items, similar to the fashion by which the first Christians' pagan neighbors treated various objects.
To sum up, the fullness of Scripture should be consulted, as the veneration of Mary is not supported by Jesus Christ's own words (as he includes ALL Christians as blessed) and use of relics is not scripturally supported because only a single passage mentions miracles based on possession of physical objects in a specific place (Ephesus), and the text itself calls the miracle "extraordinary" in the preceding verse (or "unusual" in other texts). Full context IS important. Scripture does NOT discuss relics as currently conceived anywhere else. That means someone down the line interpretted a single line to make relic veneration into something unspoken of in Scripture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.