Posted on 09/06/2007 3:27:02 PM PDT by annalex
On Marianism.
Absolutely Mary is blessed among women, and absolutely she will be called blessed by all generations. There is a far cry from being blessed though, to being venerated and prayed to.
Note that Mary refers to her humility (in the Magnificat), and says God has done great things TO her. She rejoices in God. Nowhere does she exalt herself, or place herself as a person who should be prayed to or venerated.
Throughout the scriptures, godly prayer is directed only towards God... all else is idolatry. It is one of the marks of His divinity that we are instructed to pray in Jesus' name (Jn 14:13). Some would say that we are only asking Mary to pray for us, as we might ask any other person to pray for us, but especially with Mary, this walks a dangerously thin line.
Similarly for worship, we are told to worship God alone. It is again noteworthy that Jesus accepts worship from people during His time (see Jn 9:38).
The healing of the woman who touches Jesus' clothing is a fascinating question. Is God's power 'magic' that can be invoked and used by men because it inhabits and resides in objects... or was the 'power going out of Jesus' done through her faith and the grace of God? I would say the former goes strongly against what God tells us about Himself throughout scripture. There is no power in the Spear of Destiny, the Holy Grail, or any other object. Power and our faith reside in God alone, and in Him alone do I place my trust.
Jesus is never a bad son, but He is absolutely a true Son to our truest Father, the God of Abraham and Isaac, who is ever faithful. Does Christ exist to fulfill our wishes and make us 'happy'? Does He exist to make His human mother happy? Or does He exist and derive perfect joy from doing the will of our Father in heaven? Note the incident where Christ stays behind after the Passover. When His parents find Him, Mary says,
"Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you."
"Why were you searching for me?" he asked. "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?" (Luke 2:48b-49)
Is Christ a bad son here, or a perfect son?
Does Mary exist to call Christ to her desires and will, or is she the servant of the Lord?
"I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered, "May it be to me as you have said." (Luke 1:38)
Oh... and to be honest, I don't read much about Catholicism. The whole Protestant/Catholic debate is a rather dead issue to me, and I'm actually quite surprised to see people still beating the poor dead horse.
Oh, understood about your comment about considering scripture in it's totality, but there are clear and definite instances where it is clear that people have not even attempted this.
In all things, may God be glorified, and we be humble.
In the Gospel according to Patton (admittedly a debated work) the word is, "Do not take council of your fears."
I find nothing that tells me the road to salvation is anything other than straight and narrow - a thin line, the transgression of which is perilous. So yes, it's a dangerous line. I walk it boldly and invite you to do so as well. Let's rock 'n roll!Shall we say, "I can't risk this because it's dangerous?" Safety is staying in bed -- and now there are bedbugs, so nothing is safe. Might as well go after adventure!
or was the 'power going out of Jesus' done through her faith and the grace of God
Clearly In Mary's case, that of the handmaid of the Lord, such "power" as "Goes out" involves her faith. And it's ALL grace upon grace!
It is because, and only because, of the great things that God has done for Mary that we venerate and celebrate her. This hit me in a big way this Assumption Day when I realized anew that What Jesus holds out to all the faithful is already fulfilled in her.
In her is realized, by grace and grace alone - grace manifested in faith which enabled her to give a whole-hearted Yes to God - what I hope for you and me, the union of the created will with the Creator's will.
It is only cartoon imagery that has Mary bending Jesus to her will. And much beyond that and we get into how/whether prayer affects God's will, where I fear to tread.
Are you a parent? It seems to me it's all there implicitly, all in parenthood. Two things keep me from wholeheartedly wanting what the 'orrible brat child wants: (1) She doesn't always want what's best, (2)Sometimes I'm selfish.
If I could rely on the 'orrible brat child's always wanting the very best, and if I were always ready to set my will aside in favor of the very best, then my will would always conform to that of the 'o.b.c.
Mary's Child always wanted what was best. Mary (and I suppose this is more controversial) had already at the moment of His conception (if not before) given herself as God's handmaid, in a way us guy type individuals will never quite 'get'.
< pant, pant > ;-)
Since you don't know that much about us filthy Papists, let me say that the finding of the young Jesus in the temple is one of the "mysteries" of the Rosary. So over the years I've had the chance to give it a LOT of thought! (I started with the Rosary in 1967. I'm old. Have pity! Get me a beer!) And yeah, I think it a wonderful example of what you get when an adolescent boy is also God the Son of God, namely: confused parents. But I think it is our projection that make Mary's question a rebuke. I don't think saying "Um, Son? What was THAT about?" is necessarily querulous.
basta!
Can you show me anywhere in the bible that says Jesus got his flesh only from Mary? No, of course you can't, because it isn't there. The fact remains, if his flesh was only hers, Jesus would have been female. Obviously, God created the flesh of Jesus in Mary's womb.
Nevertheless she stands out, for obvious reasons.
Agreed, and we should respect and honor her as an outstanding servant of God. In fact, I already stated that we should. What we need to be careful of, however, is elevating her above the level of a human being.
The word "obvious" or "obviously" always get my attention.
It seems to me God could have reached in there and turned one X chromosome to a Y chromosome without adding anything to the "flesh" there. I'm not saying that happened, I'm just gunning for the "obviously".
My understanding (such as it is) of genetics in those days was that it was thought at least by some that the Mommy provided the stuff of which the child was made while the Daddy provided the sort of template. I've often wondered how they could maintain that in face of so many children looking like their mothers.
Modern genetics seems to make the Incarnation harder to understand, but then we never understood it much anyway. But I don't see how it is "necessary" for God to do anything more on the bio level than turn one 'X' into a 'Y'. SO I wouldn't say it's obvious that God created the flesh of Jesus any more than he did the flesh of any child. Or any less.
“I asked for historical proof.”
And I gave it.
“What you HAVE managed to do is to repeat a lot of misinformation.”
Nope.
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.
This author admits in the first paragraph that the Marian doctrines of the RCC are not biblical.
No need to read further.
Okay! Once I saw the profound reasoning, the compelling arguments, the unquestionable facts contained in that one simple four-letter word, I was convinced of your point of view.
"Nope!" Who can argue with that?
/ sarc off.
Do please come back when you have something to say.
Yes. We disagree with Protestants. That's why we are not Protestants. Yes, Protestants disagree with us. That's why they're Protestants.
If you're not going to engage, that would be great. Please take all of those who attack our doctrines before they take the trouble to find out what they are along with you.
And, yeah, we have a moral burden NOT to obfuscate, but we didn't make up Marian Doctrine for fun, y'know. We really believe them and we see them, as I have tried to present, as coming our of Christology and out of what is common knowledge about the parent-child relationship.
In other words, simplicity is good, but not so good that one should be inaccurate to preserve it. We actually do believe this stuff.
I think in fact when somebody receives a great gift, we praise the giver AND the recipient. "Congratulation" is such a nice word, suggesting joining in "little thanks".
I think part of the confusion is the sort of spectacular nature of the private prayers of Marian devotion. It is played up by the media and by protestants who find it exotic and repellent. But in my daily prayers I spend maybe 20 minutes max on the Rosary and probably 90 minutes on Mass and office. And the bulk of my study is NOT Marian.
I am "all over" the "miraculous medal", so I suppose I am part of the problem of seeming to presenting Mary as equal to Christ. But I took care that the medal I usually wear is imposed on a cross, as if to say, "What Mary offers through her intercession is founded entirely on the Cross of Christ and has and can have no other basis."
We aare beginning another round of RCIA (as it were "enquirer's) classes. They will go weekly (with vacations) until the end of April. Maybe 24 classes. Part of one will be given to Marian doctrine and practice, and those who stick with the class all the way to the end will learn how to pray the Rosary, and on our class quiet day we'll actually pray one together. But it's not proportional to our practice and teaching to react as if Mary dominated it. Mary helps bring me to Jesus, as do all the Saints.
IF the Marian doctrines can’t be found in scripture anyplace, at all, never, nada, nicts: then you do have a different place for scripture than do we.
We have a place for it.
You don’t.
(At least with Mary....in which case you have an inconsistent place for it.)
Hey MD,
I’m afraid we’ll just have to accept that we disagree on Marianism. The question is never what the intent of Marianism was (I’m sure it was with the best of intentions), but rather whether it is scripturally justified and glorifies God.
Please give it some thought, and may the Spirit guide us both in our thinking.
That the place we have for the Scriptures we preserved edited and compiled, a place discussed so often on FR that I simply cannot believe that it is news to you, differs from yours does not mean that we have no place at all for it. It may mean that you do not understand the place we have for it, or that you do not care to understand it.
It is a general rule that it is easier to denigrate and mock the inventions of one's own mind than to determine what is in fact the case.
As to glorifying God, I have no question that I praise God in His Saints.
But as is now being discussed (for the ninety-eleventh time) Catholics have this notion of Tradition which is not endorsed by most Protestants. Consequently our attitude toward Scripture, which we tend to interpret traditionally, differs from that of most Protestants. By our lights our Marian teaching and practice are eminently Scripturally justified.
The big "meta" question is "What does 'to prove from Scripture' mean and how can one tell when one has done it?"
I invite people who I think would be interested in the conversation. I didn’t see that you had placed a “Catholic Caucus Only” sign on the thread.
I’m sorry I missed that.
I think we disagree strongly on whether Marian dogma is biblically justified, as I think you’d find would be the case with most non-Catholics (which the RC sometimes lumps together under the rather vague term ‘Protestant’).
I have no doubt that you believe you glorify God.
You’re right that Catholic ‘tradition’ is the main stumbling point. Catholics tend to assign near scriptural authority to the writings of many Saints, Popes, or synods... wrongly in my opinion, but that is to be expected in this case.
The question though is whether my opinion in this case is of man (in which case it should be disregarded), or of God (in which case we should heed it carefully and with thanks).
As to your question, “What does ‘to prove from Scripture’ mean and how can one tell when one has done it?”, I think that’s an excllent question.
My answer would be to seek the ‘answer’;
1) through prayer
2) through contemplation of scripture
3) with fasting
4) by waiting and listening for an answer
5) by testing your ‘answer’ against mature believers
6) by leaving behind your preference/assumption, and humbly seeking what God says
We are also told that we are one body, and there are those within the body who are gifted in the interpretation of spirits and in prophesy. Depending upon the question, those members of the body should also be used. Ultimately, the answer does not reside in us or human wisdom (though we are to love the Lord our God with our mind as well), but spiritual answers have a spiritual source, and the answer lies in the Holy Spirit.
Normally when ‘Catholic’ is capitalised, it is intended to refer to the Roman Catholic church.
The small ‘c’ catholic normally refers to the body of all believers.
My apologies if you were already aware of this.
I would agree with you though that the ‘meaning’ of the statement is not the Roman Catholic church, but rather the body of believers in Christ, and it is to these that the Holy Spirit is given, not to any human ‘denomination’.
James reminds us that in Christ, there are no denominations, but that we all have Christ alone as our head.
I’m afraid we’ll just have to accept that we disagree on Marianism.
That's a HUGE 10-4. What I do want to accomplish is to show how a reasonable person of good will (clearly not me, but there's got to be one somewhere ...) could think this way. Selling is not my forte.
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.