Posted on 05/05/2002 11:30:36 PM PDT by nickcarraway
by Mark Shea
How I Changed My Mind About Mary
5/6/02
It once seemed perfectly obvious to me that Catholics honored Mary too much. All those feasts, rosaries, icons, statues and whatnot were ridiculously excessive. Yes, the gospel of Luke said something about her being "blessed" and yes I thought her a good person. But that was that.
No Mary, No Salvation
People who celebrated her or called her "Mother" or did all the million things which Catholic piety encourages bordered on idolatry. It was all too much. Jesus, after all, is our Savior, not Mary.
However, after looking at the gospel of Luke afresh and thinking more and more about the humanity of Jesus Christ, some things dawned on me. For it turns out that Luke said more than "something" about Mary. He reports that God was conceived in her womb and thereby made a son of Adam! This means more than merely saying that Mary was an incubator unit for the Incarnation. It means that the Logos, the Second Person of the Trinity derives his humanity--all of it--from her! Why does this matter? Because the entire reason we are able to call Jesus "savior" at all is because the God who cannot die became a man who could die. And he chose to do it through Mary's free "yes" to him. No Mary, no human nature for Christ. No human nature for Christ, no death on the cross. No death, no resurrection. No resurrection, no salvation. Without Mary, we are still in our sins.
Too Much vs. Just Enough
This made me see Mary very differently. The Incarnation is vastly more than God zipping on a disposable man-suit. He remains man eternally. Therefore, his joining with the human race through the womb of Mary means (since he is the savior of us all), that she is the mother of us all (John 19:27). Moreover, it means that her remarkable choice to say "Yes" to the Incarnation was not merely a one-time incident, it was an offering of her own heart to God and us. Her heart was pierced by the sword that opened the fountain of blood and water in Christ's human heart, for it was she who, by the grace of God, gave him that heart (Luke 2:35; John 19:34).
Seeing this, I began to wonder again: If Catholics honor Mary "too much", where did we Evangelicals honor her "just enough." Mary herself said "henceforth, all generations will call me blessed." When was the last time I had heard a contemporary Christian tune on the radio sung in honor of Mary? Or a prayer in church to extol her? How about a teensy weensy bit of verse or a little article in some magazine singling out Mary as blessed among women? Aside from "Silent Night" was there anything in Evangelical piety which dared to praise her for even a moment? I was an Evangelical for seven years and I never saw so much as a dram of it.
St. Luke? Is That You?</>
So the question became for me, "How could we talk about something being 'excessive' when we had virtually no experience of it ourselves?" What if it was we Evangelicals who were excessive in our horror of Marian piety and Catholics who are normal? Judging from the witness of the early Fathers and even of Martin Luther (who had a very robust Marian devotion and whose tomb is decorated with an illustration of the Assumption of the Virgin into Heaven) it seemed to me that it was we Evangelicals who were excessive in our fear of her rather than Catholics who were excessive in their devotion.
"Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen."
There. That didn't hurt a bit. In fact, I think I heard St. Luke pray it too!
From anti-Christian, anti-Catholic Indian Hindu websites, it seems obvious to them that the witness of Mother teresa was evangelization. Why is that which is so obvious to Hindu pagans so difficult for you to see?
link...Francis Arinze, one of the senior cardinals at the Vatican, confirmed that the primary task of the Roman Catholic Church is to convert. He said recently,
Has the Church anything else to do? No. Evangelisation is central to the mission of the Church. The task of evangelising all people constitutes the central mission of the Church. The Church has no other assignment. (Mark Pattison, Primary Mission is to Evangelise, The Examiner, Oct 18, 1997.)
This injunction of Cardinal Arinze was faithfully followed by Mother Teresa in her institute called Missionaries of Charity. In his book, The Missionary Position, Shri Christopher Hitchens quoted from a testimony of Susan Shields, who worked for nine and a half years as a member of Mother Teresa’s order. She says:
“For Mother (Teresa), it was the spiritual well-being of the poor that mattered most. Material aid was a means of reaching their souls, of showing the poor that God loved them. In the homes for the dying, Mother taught the sisters how to secretly baptize those who were dying.
*****
Mother Teresa's Hidden Mission in India:
Conversion to Christianity
by Dhiru Shah
[ Editor's intro: Dhiru Shah is an
Atlanta-based writer.]
We must praise and respect any person involved in selfless humanitarian work
irrespective of his or her religious belief. But as soon as that work is done
with ulterior motive, it no longer remains a saintly deed. Mother
Teresa's work falls into the second category. Unfortunately, glowing tributes
were paid to her by the pseudo-secularist leaders of India, Indian newspapers,
and several Westernized Indians, without examining her mission in India.
Mother Teresa was wedded to the Catholic Church, particularly the Vatican
establishment, whose main mission is to convert people in developing countries
into Christianity by any means, now that Europeans are abandoning church
membership and Christianity in increasing numbers.
Well said! Amen!
The problem for you poly is you believe you work your way into heaven....if she didnt work her way in who will?
The answer is clear NO ONE
Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
Brian they will not know unless you tell them
Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
Brian were Jesus and the apostles lying when they said you are saved by grace? Maybe Jesus should have not bothered with the cross..just opened up a ministry..
You need to read your bible.. Apparently you do not believe Chrsit is necessary for salvation..all men will be saved if they do goods things. This sounds like Islam..do 51% good and you get in...
What would be the point of that? Obviously, different people draw different meanings from what they read. Wouldn't it be more efficient to just have you explain what the bible actually says? It seems to me that a lot of confusion could be avoided that way.
So true.
Only those with "the mind of Christ" will be able to correctly handle the Word of Truth.
It is as Paul said when he wrote to the church (those with the Spirit) in various locations:
"For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ."
"[I am] called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ --- separated to the gospel of God --- among whom you *also* are the called of Jesus Christ --- *called to be saints* ..."
"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. ... But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them because they are spiritually discerned."
"Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ [not regenerate] he is not His."
And Peter also writes: "... ignorant and unstable people (those without the Spirit of God / the mind of Christ) distort [Paul's writings], as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."
And Jesus, himself said: "I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper ("Parakletos" - "One which is called to aid"), that He may abide with you forever, even the Spirit of TRUTH which the world cannot receive because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and shall be in you. ...the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in My name HE will teach you....".
And John writes this to the elect of God: "These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you. The anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that ANYONE teach you ..."
[1Cor.2:16; Rom.1:1-7; 8:9; 1 Cor.2:12-14; 2Pet.3:16; John 14:16-17,26; 1 John 2:26-27]
So you are right when you said, "Obviously, different people draw different meanings from what they read."
Only the people in whom God dwells will be able to correctly handle the Word of Truth. The rest are God haters who will just naturally twist Scripture to their own destruction.
The Spirit of TRUTH dwelling in the regenerate ... the Helper whom the Father sent in Jesus' name -- HE teaches us. The anointing which we have received from Him abides in us, and we do not need that ANY man teach us...".
Those who say otherwise are denounced by the apostle John as "deceivers" [1 John 1: 26-27].
LOL. You are obsessed with proving Catholicism wrong, and thus your mind is closed and your heart hardened.
You should fear for your salvation as much as you fear for the Mother Teresa's and those she ministered to.
I only wish you comprehended the difference between preacher and servant, priest and nun.
As for Mother Teresa.If her works reflected her relationship with Christ , I do not worry about her eithor..ahhhhhhh but those dying with out ever HEARING the gospel..that is MY fear (and I hope yours too)
If that be the case, I urge you to cease posting on biblical subjects. Your sheep costume does not conceal your lupine countenance.
Are passive sheep able to have any kind of spiritual discernment without asking their *infallible* interpreter what to believe?
BTW! How do you know which "infallible interpreter" is the right one to ask?
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church says there have been about thirty-five antipopes in the history of the RCC. How can there be two infallible and opposing popes at the same time? Which is the true pope? Since there is no infallible list of popes or even an infallible way to determine who is the infallible pope, the system has a serious logical problem. Each pope can excommunicate the other (and sometimes have). This being the case, claiming that only one is the real pope is at best only theoretical and does not solve the practical problem of which pope should be followed.
And did you know that the pope has officially spoken _ex cathedra_ only one time in a whole century (on the Bodily Assumption of Mary)! (The idea of Mary ascending to heaven without dying was not made an official doctrine of the RCC until 1950 --- nearly twenty centuries after Christ).
And an "infallible" pope (Honorius I) was condemned by the Sixth General Council for teaching heresy. Roman Catholic expert, Ludwig Ott, says that "Pope Leo II confirmed his anathematization...". Here we have an infallible pope teaching a fallible, indeed _heretical,_ doctrine. If the papal teaching office is infallible -- if it cannot mislead on doctrine and ethics -- then how could a papal teaching be heretical? Do you know?
And how could this supposedly *infallible* pronouncement of the RCC wind up being fallible?: The Jesuits, the Dominicans, and three popes (Paul V, Gregory XV, and Urban VIII), played key roles when Galileo was summoned by the Inquisition in 1632, tried, and on June 21, 1633, pronounced "vehemently suspected of heresy." Even though Pope Urban VIII eventually allowed Galileo to return to his home in Florence, he remained under house arrest until his death in 1642.
Do you know that in "Catholic" countries the Bible is still shunned as "dangerous.” As documented by the Hefleys in their book, By Their Blood: Christian Martyrs Of The 20th Century, (Mott Media, 1979), wherever the Church of Rome has political power, it still does all it can to keep the Bible away from the people.
Oh, and by the way --- do you agree with the RCC in it's refusal to retract its official denial of religious freedom and its right to use violence to force people to accept its doctrines?
Let's see, should I depend on the church that is the bride of Christ, or Matchett-PI. Hmmm. Look, you and I would never agree on anything. Your whole system rests on what I would describe as a faulty interpretation of 2 Tim;3:16. From that starting point I could never see your interpretations as credible. Sorry.
St.C: "Let's see, should I depend on the church that is the bride of Christ..."?
True Christians depend on the Holy Spirit.
The "Bride of Christ" is constituted of regenerate individuals in whom is the Holy Spirit. They make up the body of believers called "the church".
They are the ones to whom Jesus was speaking when he said: "I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper that He may abide with you forever, even the Spirit of TRUTH which the world cannot receive because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and shall be in you. ...the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in My name HE will teach you....".
A true Christian would definately NOT want to depend upon those who infer that Jesus didn't mean what he said. Those people are denounced by the apostle John as "deceivers". As the apostle John said -- deceivers will try to tell him that he needs an *interpreter* other than the indwelling Holy Spirit to teach him.
John said to the individuals that make up the Bride of Christ: "The anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that ANYONE teach you ...".
St.C: "Your whole system rests on what I would describe as a faulty interpretation of 2 Tim;3:16. ..."
Who interprets 2Tim:3:16 for you?
It is the Spirit, not the pope, that dwells in every true believer's heart, who guides, teaches and abides with the church forever. For only the Spirit reveals the infinite wisdom of God and it is he who has given the church the written Word of God, the Holy Bible, to sanctify the church until Christ’s return:
"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, HE shall teach you all things...” John 14:26
"How be it when he, the Spirit of Truth is come, HE will guide you into all truth...” John 16:13
"And I will pray to the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that HE may abide with you forever" John 14:16
"For what man knoweth the things of man save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.” 1 Cor 2:11
Since the whole sentence hinges on the word useful, Webster's Dictionary has had a part to play. Since the RCC doesn't seem to feel it needs to twist the meanings of words, my confidence in their interpretation is greater than those who would inject arbitrary definitions. Or does the Holy Spirit or "the mind of Christ" have trouble with the written word.
John 14:26 would appear to contradict sola scriptura, but I'm sure you have an explanation.
St.C: "Since the whole sentence hinges on the word useful, Webster's Dictionary has had a part to play."
So you are contending that everything Jesus said about the role of the Holy Spirit -- (dwelling in his apostles and in individual Christians reading what they wrote, ie: Scripture) -- can be nullified by one word?
That it all depends upon what the meaning of "is" is -- I mean, what the meaning of "useful" is?
Paul, in one of his letters to Timothy, admonishes him to remind the individuals that make up the church to rightly apply the Word of Truth, and not to strive about words." [2Tim.2:14-15]
Now with that in mind, let's address your hangup about the meaning of a word:
Some versions of the Bible translate the Greek word "ophelimos" as "useful". ("use, usefulness, & utility" have a shared meaning element: "capacity for serving an end or purpose").
However, the Greek word "ophelimos" more accurately means "profitable": "yielding advantageous / beneficial returns or results". "Profit": "a valuable return: GAIN"
Paul also writes in 2 Tim.3:16: "ALL graphe [Scripture] is theopneustos [God-breathed] and is ophelimos [profitable] for ....". Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me ... and keep by the Holy Spirit who dwells in us that good thing [the gospel] which was [past tense]committed to you. [2 Tim.1:13-14]
And of course in 1 Cor.14:37, (The New Testament) Paul says, ".... the things I am writing to you are a command from the Lord." ["Thus sayeth the Lord". "God's Words". "Scripture". "theopneustos (God-breathed)".
And Peter classifies "..all of his [Paul's] epistles" with "the other Scriptures". [2 Pet.3:16].
And in 1 Tim.5:18, Paul quotes Jesus' words in Luke 10:7, and calls them, "Scripture".
And in John 14:26 and 16:13, Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would bring all that he had said to the disciples' remembrance and would guide them into all truth.
Jesus, himself, promised that they would be able to remember and record without error, ALL that Jesus had said. [The definition of "theopneustos God-breathed)"].
Find other references to Jesus' promise in 2Pet.3:2; 1Cor.2:13; 1Thess.4:15; Rev.22:18-19, etc.
St.C: "Since the RCC doesn't seem to feel it needs to twist the meanings of words, my confidence in their interpretation is greater than those who would inject arbitrary definitions. Or does the Holy Spirit or "the mind of Christ" have trouble with the written word."
:D
St.C: "John 14:26 would appear to contradict sola scriptura, but I'm sure you have an explanation."
Jesus' promise to his apostles that he would send them the Holy Spirit to remind them of "everything I have said to you", is a guarantee that what they wrote is "theopneustos" [God-breathed]. Because of the promise Jesus made to the 12 apostles, they are the ONLY authorized agents of Christ. No writing after the death of the 12 can be canonical. Only the 12 can attest to the truth of a writing about Christ. When all the eyewitnesses had died, the canon of revelation about Christ ceased.
In A.D. 367 the Thirty-ninth Paschal Letter of Athanasius contained an exact list of the twenty-seven New Testament books we have today. This was the list of books accepted by the churches in the eastern part of the Mediterranean world. Thirty years later, in A.D. 397, the Council of Carthage, representing the churches in the western part of the Mediterranean world, agreed with the eastern churches on the same list. These are the earliest final lists of our canon of Scripture.
No. I am simply stating that what you say (not Jesus), is nullified. No matter what synonyms you want to employ for the word useful,( profitable, advantageous,having beneficial results) it can never have the meaning you give it; useful can never mean personal interpretation as infallible authority.
Furthermore, I am shocked that you would imply that Jesus said individual Christians reading what the apostles wrote would have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them. There is absolutely no mention of Jesus telling anyone to write anything, let alone what the result of reading it would be.
Paul in one of his letters to Timothy, admonishes him to remind the individuals that make up the church to rightly apply the Word of Truth and not to strive about words. 2 Tim 2;14-15
Look, I'm not the one digging up Greek translations, just applying the term "useful" as it is meant in its simplest, most universally understood meaning. A hammer is useful in building a house. However, you will require much more to attain your goal. Frankly, IMHO, Paul's admonition to Timothy applies to you.
St.C: "No. I am simply stating that what you say (not Jesus), is nullified."
Where is your authority for nullifying the Scriptures? I haven't seen you quoting any Scriptures that nullify what I wrote. Indeed, I am the only one who has quoted Scripture (the infallible words of Jesus, Paul, Peter, John, et.al.). You have merely given me your opinion with nothing to back it up. Provide the quotes where you say I have contradicted the Scriptures.
St.C: "No matter what synonyms you want to employ for the word useful,( profitable, advantageous,having beneficial results) it can never have the meaning you give it; useful can never mean personal interpretation as infallible authority."
You're confused. The only "infallible authority" are the Scriptures.
Those without the Spirit cannot understand Scriptural Truth, however, because it is spiritually discerned.
Do you think that is what "I" say?
No --- that is what the apostle Paul says to church member "brethren" in the church of God at Corinth.
He tells them this: "Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. ... But the natural man (without the Holy Spirit), does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them because they are spiritually discerned. ... but we have the mind of Christ."
I gave you the origional Greek word. Look it up for yourself. It's a predicate adjective that describes what the result of studying Scripture will be --- for those in whom the Holy Spirit dwells (as __Paul said__ in the Scriptures I quoted above).
St.C: "Furthermore, I am shocked that you would imply that Jesus said individual Christians reading what the apostles wrote would have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them."
Really??????? Where have you been? Are you not able to understand the Scriptures I've been quoting? And I have only given you the tip of the iceberg.
There is no such thing as a true Christian if the Spirit of God isn't living in him. A Christian is a "temple" for the Holy Spirit to dwell. Is that "foolishness" to you?
Do you think that is what "I" say?
No --- it is what the apostle Paul says:
"But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ (dwelling in him), he is not His. The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God.." [Rom.8:9-17]
St.C: "There is absolutely no mention of Jesus telling anyone to write anything...."
Jesus told his apostles: ".. when the Spirit of Truth comes whom I will send you from the Father ... He will testify of Me. And YOU will bear witness because YOU have been with me from the beginning." [John 15:26-27]
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.