Posted on 02/01/2007 9:29:47 AM PST by Ottofire
You know, Ottofire, that you have heard it before that "silence" regarding a particular Scriptural premise doesn't make it moot.
Mary is the anawim of Sacred Scripture, and will remain as unrecognized as she was at the inn when she and Joseph were told "there is no room"--until all is made known. All that is hidden will be one day be revealed.
I think that's all the time I will give for this.
This exchange all began when you posted (#52) things about Catholic beliefs that are not true. They may be true from your viewpoint, but they are not true in praxis nor in doctrine.
I responded to the claims you made in that post and it has brought us back to this never-ending exchange. I'm not leaving here now because I don't have answers. I made my original post to you to tell you that what you are claiming about Catholicism is not true as you present it, and the quagmire remains where it was, so there is no use continuing.
I was also re-reading the RM's guidelines and in one of the paragraphs, it says that we should be aware that we have theologians on this forum and that if we are not up to debate, we should know that. (paraphrasing, of course, as I don't have time to go back and get the exact quote).
Well, I am not a theologian. I also am not a Scripture scholar. I do not have any degrees. All I have is over a half century of daily Scripture reading, and meditation on those readings and the company of others who have shared that with me.
And I'm Catholic. And I have given my life to Jesus. If that isn't good enough for some, it is my all for Him, and He knows me.
So I'll let this go.
Please see #82.
I trust that the "you" referred to in the last sentence (and a previous one in this post) is a generic "you" and not addressed to me personally.
I will let God judge me. No one else is permitted to do that.
I also think you are over the line trying to imagine what I, as a Catholic would say to God when I stand before Him, and putting those words as if they were in my thoughts or my mouth without any justification to do so. The image you have chosen to convey about me--or other Catholics-- is not true.
I am not judging you, FRiend. I am just telling you what the Word of God says. God is your's and my judge, because it is He who will hand out the rewards or punishments for our lives.
Sincerely
It didn't make the canon; neither did the Didache of the Apostles, but both are orthodox documents.
While you make the very valid point that the proto-gospel of James is a very early document, constructed prior to the official pronouncement of the perpetual virginity of Mary, you are perhaps overstating the case for the book in your argument. The book is orthodox for Catholics. Its scope is rather limited, however, focusing almost exclusively on Mary's life. It has two troubling features for me. One, it purports to have been written by James. This was almost universally discounted by the early church, which was the primary reason for its exclusion from the Canon. Secondly, it has such a singular focus (establishing the purity of Mary) and attendant fantastic details (not fantastic in the sense of necessarily untrue, but fantastic in the sense of fantasy) that it fits well with other apocryphal works.
Rather, there existed (and exists) a very ancient, proto-canonical text, one used by the early church and which was included in some early lists of the canon (not in others).
This is a bit overstated as well. To say it was listed in some early lists of the canon is not really significant when one considers that not Irenaeus, nor Tertullian, nor the Muratorian fragment, nor the Peshito, nor Tatian's Diatessaron, nor the testimony of Justin's writings consider proto-James as a part of the Canon.
I want to emphasize that this was a very ancient document, not something devised by the Church once the theology of the Church became more sophisticated and the conundrum of Original Sin and Mary arose.
You make a very good point here. But, the proto-gospel of James was written in response to the questions of the virgin birth of Jesus. That is obvious. It is almost the exclusive point of the work. So, while it was not constructed to solve the problem of Original Sin vs. Incarnation, it was to solve the problem of a virginal conception and the assertion of the early church that Mary was sinless. This (in my mind) "need" of the early church to claim that Mary was sinless hints at an already developing tension in the theology between sin and the incarnation, with the need to explain the impossibility of a flawed human carrying the divine. You will, of course, see it differently.
--mary has never been a godess of any sort in catholic theology or dogma, or doctrine.
Something I always found interesting when reading the OT. I had to find out a bit about the term Asherah and the Asherim that the Israelites always seem to be worshiping when they fell away from God. Queen of Heaven, Wife of God echoes much of the Catholic praise of Mary.
Sorry, but if you bow down before anyone or even a statue, you ain't bowing down before God.
Beautiful.
Our Lady should always be honored.........and loved.
"ok, but there is still the concept that yes, God could have chosen to be conceived in a SINFUL womb, it would make absolutely no sense, just as the OT Ark of the Covenant was to be perfect, as God Himself instructed on its construction to hold the WORD, then the woman to carry the LIVING WORD, had to be perfect as well."
I agree..especially given the example of the ark of the covenant as you pointed out.
I guess it's just a matter of how it's phrased....how God chose to accomplish his plan vs. God "having" to do it a certain way.
Does that make sense?
"mary has never been a godess of any sort in catholic theology or dogma, or doctrine."
I know..that wasn't for you.
I get preemptively defensive, as it is rare to post about Mary without getting the "goddess" criticisms. :)
--And I'm Catholic. And I have given my life to Jesus. If that isn't good enough for some, it is my all for Him, and He knows me.
I hope and pray that the Catholic church will not lead you away from the Logos, Word made Flesh, and the Word inspired by God. You must understand that I am just making an apologia as Peter commanded us to do, and I have no ill will to you.
I will pray for you and hope you find Christ to be the complete savior that He promised to be.
And here, as you decided to end this, I will give you some peace. We will just have to agree to disagree until next time :o)
Otto
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
"Sorry, but if you bow down before anyone or even a statue, you ain't bowing down before God."
Ok...I suppose that means if the Queen of England walked in the room, you would not use proper etiquette by bowing.
I suppose the Japanese are worshipping each other all day every day when they bow to each other.
No one should take karate either...they bow to each other before sparring.
"Something I always found interesting when reading the OT. I had to find out a bit about the term Asherah and the Asherim that the Israelites always seem to be worshiping when they fell away from God. Queen of Heaven, Wife of God echoes much of the Catholic praise of Mary. "
Catholics do not worship Mary as a goddess. Period.
If you look in the OT, you will notice that during the period of the Davidic kingdoms, it was not the wife of the king who was the queen, but rather it was the mother of the king who held the title of Queen Mother.
Jesus restored the Davidic kingdom to last for eternity.
His mother is the Queen Mother.
Jesus is King of heaven...that would make Mary the queen...not by any merit of her own, but because of the status of her son.
This is not "goddess" worship...this is Jesus following the same commandment He gave us..."Honor thy father and thy mother."
Under the scenario you have offered to me, I will choose to walk away from this in peace.
--Ok...I suppose that means if the Queen of England walked in the room, you would not use proper etiquette by bowing.
Nope, don't believe in the divine right of kings. God did place the governments of the earth, but the Apostles and Early Church did not worship Caesar either, unless I got my history screwed up.
--I suppose the Japanese are worshipping each other all day every day when they bow to each other.
Perhaps in Shinto and Buddhist religion, where the individuals would bow to the shared god inside all people, yes, it is. And social bowing is just an extension of that, which lost its religious function. Much like saying "Bless you" to most people is courtesy not an actual blessing.
--No one should take karate either...they bow to each other before sparring.
Again, the religious roots of the martial arts coming forth in a less than religious function.
As for the rest of the Marian doctrine, I think I will follow RunningOnEmpty's example and let this one rest until the next time. Since no one will attempt to rectify the Catholic beliefs with the Scripture, such as ScubieNuc pointing out Luke 11:27-28, or even Luke 1:1-4 and show Mary as what the RCC claims it is in light of those passages, or explain why Paul or John never mentions the miraculous nature of Mary, in any of their several works, I will just let this one slide as indefensible traditions, leading to a false gospel.
If Scripture conflicts with Tradition, Tradition is wrong and will lead one to hell.
I hope that you can see the true Gospel sometime later in life, if I did not plant the seeds tonight.
Goodnight and God Bless!
Otto
"Nope, don't believe in the divine right of kings. God did place the governments of the earth, but the Apostles and Early Church did not worship Caesar either, unless I got my history screwed up. "
No one has claimed the Apostles or Early Church worshipped Caesar.
Worship means different things to different people I suppose.
To some the mere act of bowing consists of worship, and to another it is an act of respect or acknowledgement.
To catholics worship consists of sacrifice - the paschal supper at every mass. Worship is offering adoration to the Holy Trinity.
To a catholic - and to many other people of different denominations - bowing, curtseying, kissing, hand-shaking...are acts of respect/acknowledgement/affection, but not of "worship"
Just because you personally decided to declare the acts of others as "worship" simply doesn't make it true.
Catholic do not worship Mary ....period.
"Perhaps in Shinto and Buddhist religion, where the individuals would bow to the shared god inside all people, yes, it is. And social bowing is just an extension of that, which lost its religious function. Much like saying "Bless you" to most people is courtesy not an actual blessing"
So you acknowledge that bowing does not necessarily mean "worhip"...ok.
"If Scripture conflicts with Tradition, Tradition is wrong and will lead one to hell. "
Tradition and scripture cannot and do not conflict.
What can conflict is one person's interpretation of scripture, vs. another person's interpretation of scripture.
And that is where we get thousands of different interpretation so we wind up with different denominations of christians declaring (viciously wishing?) other denominations as hellbound.
"I hope that you can see the true Gospel sometime later in life, if I did not plant the seeds tonight."
The more I study the true Gospel the more comfortable I am with the spiritual home God has placed me in.
"Goodnight and God Bless!"
God bless you too.
trust me, I won't.
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.