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.
The Holy Rolling Empire.
nah.
Hey. Let’s call it a night. We can try to save each other another day.
:p
Please, there is plenty of cogent discussion in that post of hers , yet I see no reply but this one complaint, followed by what appears to me to be hand-waiving, calling it all "anti-Catholic material".
If issues cannot be spoken of directly, how can they at all? The first link she gave, at the top of the post outlined arguments on both sides of an issue, that one specifically being Genesis 3:15.
I notice a distinct avoidance by any to address those points, the changed gender in the passage, and the conflicts between various positions taken regarding Mary, at different times.
The trouble many of us have are the inconsistencies that can be found. When they are brought to light -- if we are not ignored, we either get rudely insulted, are in lesser fashion called "anti-Catholic" or worse, but rarely ever are the inconsistencies addressed in logical, rational manner, for the explanations if they do appear all too often rely upon some sort of having things both ways, are tossed back to "infallible magesterium" as "proof", or in the case of much of current Mariology, have scant support found other than in apparent folk belief which sprung up early in church history, particularly in the East, and tap nearer to present day apparitions of Mary which then circulate among the faithful.
Near the end of the article we encounter statements such as;
Exalted to the seat closest to Him? When did He promise that specifically to her? What gives? Where, oh where does that sort of idea come from? Long winded apologia about how much he loves her, what she went through, how close she is to Him etc., still don't get us to "exalted...to closest seat..to Him in God's Kingdom", in fact such a claim can be seen to contradict scripture, (those scriptures having been posted on this thread already, by more than a few -- but ignored!) before even entering into being theologically troubling.
One Creator. One Son, One Spirit. But now there's four? When we otherwise hear of Mary being trumpeted as being "Queen of Heaven" perhaps one might see where others would object to the sound of it? If Mary "Queen", what next? "Move over Jesus, you're sitting in mommy's chair?"
I mean, the Roman Church IS quite famous for "unpacking" revelation said to have already existed. The phrase itself comes from a Roman Church prelate. But I predict there will be a difficult time stretching three more fully into being four, any more than has already been, and is currently being expounded upon in some RCC quarters.
You’re good with history. Just pick Jesus’ denomination.I did. :) +
Read this...
It's never seemed to stop you guys from using it yourselves many times. It's subjective.
But, rather than denigrate a source because you may not like what it says, one thing that Wikipedia does is post ALL its source material right there at the bottom of the page, usually with hypertext links built right in so you can go to them and check the footnotes for yourself. Of course, had one gone to the actual link, one would have seen that and might not have made such a poor excuse for NOT reading the material. Too bad. Here's the link again so anyone can check if I am right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance
Here's a box of Marion crunch berries, just for you
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2966953/posts?page=51#51
Not much refuted, (other than by fanciful claims such as in the article heading this thread) guess ya'll just have to eat em up.
Bon Appetit
It's not called FORNICATION when you are married to each other before God! Are you denying a BIBLICAL fact??? Both Luther and his wife LEFT the false religious system of Roman Catholicism - just as many STILL do today. These people are not slaves to a system they no longer accept. Better that they leave and get married to each other than sneak around and fornicate while still in a clerical system that demands celibacy (i.e., Pope Julius II, Pope Paul III, Pope Pius IV, Pope Sergius III, Pope John X, Pope John XII, Pope Alexaner VI, et al).
Shall we speak of Luther and his support of bigamy for the rich and powerful? And his claim of Biblical support for same?
There can be seen predestination also. one thing at a time? hehheh
I see too another form of unspoken belief in imputed grace, for who has more unconsciously assumed to be imputed to them than faithful members of the RCC? Though some may be riding a bit upon their own provided cushion of grace granted to themselves as a sort of indulgence/righteousness accounting system (lots of Protestants do much the same thing!) which reassures and assists them that yes, they are now good enough for God to continue within themselves the good work the Lord Himself began, and so can be freely forgiven upon confession.
But what happens when one is "not good enough"? The honest people, those honest with themselves, hurt the most and led to believe they cannot be forgiven, or if so, only if going through certain motions (which one can soon enough figure out one is doomed to repeat) and only by making themselves beggars of the priesthood whom claim to be the fonts of forgiveness...(if they don't forgive you. your sins are retained, right?) while those more blind to their own true condition keep charging ahead, sometimes scarcely changed at all. Then a few of that latter sort work their way to positions of authority. Happens to every bureaucracy...including "Protestant" ones.
Ah, but there are a different kind of cheaters in there too, isn't there? Honest "cheaters". Some go boldly to the throne of grace themselves, not bringing every little thing to the priesthood to "forgive" but visiting the fountain of living waters in their own prayer life, if they have the Spirit dwelling with them...they may confess to most anyone, and that be part of being healed.
For it is not the act of confession itself so much, as it is a factor of accountability. We all must face our selves, and our sins, so that we may be better rid of them. NOT so that we may be further condemned by our looking upon the same, or need do "penance" (which has different definition than simply REPENTANCE) for we are truly ransomed prisoners already. Bought & paid for, in full.
There is no need for one to allow others, by mixing up, stirring up the Gospel into a confusing swirl, leave the danger of one becoming twice over the creature of hell that they themselves are. Teachings replete with reams of near impenetrable, subtly conflicting messages. Not forgiven until the church grants it --- otherwise sins retained, vs. already forgiven when or before confessing, for heart's intent is what is judged.
Mary needed a savior too, by her own admission, but was born sinless.
Jesus the One true Shepherd, except for that other shepherd called the Pope.
Call no man father as it is written, except for all the priests whom one MUST call "father".
Promise of salvation freely given, but after baptism, all bets are off.
God doesn't hear prayers of sinners. Have Mary pray for you instead!
The communion wafer is the body & blood of Christ. Some communion wafers are said to have had visible blood!
Only the priests can turn the wafer into Jesus. Thank Mary for this miracle.
First of all, WOW, you can actually do more than post cartoons. Secondly, go ahead and post your sources for your claims. I'll bet I have equally good sources that will actually put anything he supposedly said IN CONTEXT and it won't seem all that scandalous as you imply. Oh, and one last thing, I don't follow Martin Luther. He was a sinner saved by the grace of God just like everyone else. Good night.
“Oh, and one last thing, I don’t follow Martin Luther.”
Then why do you defend his oath breaking?
What odd sect do you claim as your own?
Your comment concerning imputed versus infused grace is straight on, as well. The same grace God is believed by Catholics to have given Mary to purify her soul in preparation to receive the embryonic Savior, is given to ALL those who come to Him in faith, receiving the gift of eternal life which is ours because of that same grace of God and we also are indwelled - until redemption - with the Holy Spirit. We are saved because God has imputed the righteousness of Christ to our "account" and we are found IN Christ, not having our own righteousness, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness of God by faith (Philippians 3:9). The entire dynamic changes, doesn't it? It's not what we do for God, but what He has done for us. Praise His wonderful name!
I'm signing off. I hope you have a wonderful week.
We have to leave behind the rationalizations, the justifications, the excuses, and get it all out on the table,...
The spirit can be our guide in this (possibly even mUST be?).
If you can back it up, have at it.
My first laugh of the morning.
Thank you!!!!
Bondage by blackmail.
So once someone makes a commitment to the RCC, they are its forever, eh? Nice.
Suppose someone made a satanist vow before becoming a Christian? Would you demand they remain a faithful satanist their entire lives simply because they took an oath or made a vow?
And of course, expecting the worst since it seems to be served up with regular predictability, the point is about making and breaking vows not about any comparisons between the two groups.
But I do not trust that someone will not try to make it about that to avoid answering the real question, which is, whether you would condemn someone for breaking a satanist vow or demand that they be held in bondage to that vow their entire lives? After all, a vow is a vow.
she was not free to marry -- she was a nun. If "the rest of us" take up monastic vows we would not be able to marry without discharging them either. Your religion started in fornication.
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.