St. Stephen, the Patron Saint
of Bricklayers and Stone Masons.
Posted on 05/30/2008 10:21:34 AM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
Some of you will remember my recent decision to become a Catholic. I suppose I should be surprised it ended getting derailed into a 'Catholic vs. Protestant' thread, but after going further into the Religion forum, I suppose it's par for the course.
There seems to be a bit of big issue concerning Mary. I wanted to share an observation of sorts.
Now...although I was formerly going by 'Sola Scriptura', my father was born and raised Catholic, so I do have some knowledge of Catholic doctrine (not enough, at any rate...so consider all observations thusly).
Mary as a 'co-redeemer', Mary as someone to intercede for us with regards to our Lord Jesus.
Now...I can definitely see how this would raise some hairs. After all, Jesus Himself said that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that none come to the Father but through Him. I completely agree.
I do notice a bit of a fundamental difference in perception though. Call it a conflict of POV. Do Catholics worship Mary (as I've seen a number of Protestants proclaim), or do they rather respect and venerate her (as I've seen Catholics claim)? Note that it's one thing to regard someone with reverence; I revere President Bush as the noted leader of the free world. I revere my father. I revere Dr. O'Neil, a humorous and brilliant math teacher at my university. It's an act of respect.
But do I WORSHIP them?
No. Big difference between respecting/revering and worshiping. At least, that's how I view it.
I suppose it's also a foible to ask Mary to pray for us, on our behalf...but don't we tend to also ask other people to pray for us? Doesn't President Bush ask for people to pray for him? Don't we ask our family members to pray for us for protection while on a trip? I don't see quite a big disconnect between that and asking Mary to help pray for our wellbeing.
There is some question to the fact that she is physically dead. Though it stands to consider that she is still alive, in Heaven. Is it not common practice to not just regard our physical life, but to regard most of all our spirit, our soul? That which survives the flesh before ascending to Heaven or descending to Hell after God's judgment?
I don't think it's that big of a deal. I could change my mind after reading more in-depth, but I don't think that the Catholic Church has decreed via papal infallibility that Mary is to be placed on a higher pedestal than Jesus, or even to be His equal.
Do I think she is someone to be revered and respected? Certainly. She is the mother of Jesus, who knew Him for His entire life as a human on Earth. Given that He respected her (for He came to fulfill the old laws; including 'Honor Thy Father and Mother'), I don't think it's unnatural for other humans to do the same. I think it's somewhat presumptuous to regard it on the same level as idolatry or supplanting Jesus with another.
In a way, I guess the way Catholics treat Mary and the saints is similar to how the masses treated the Apostles following the Resurrection and Jesus's Ascension: people who are considered holy in that they have a deep connection with Jesus and His Word, His Teachings, His Message. As the Apostles spread the Good News and are remembered and revered to this day for their work, so to are the works of those sainted remembered and revered. Likewise with Mary. Are the Apostles worshiped? No. That's how it holds with Mary and the saints.
At least, that's how my initial thoughts on the subject are. I'll have to do more reading.
“Even the Comma Johanneum is more explicit than that”
No one said this was a competition or a test of understanding. Some are lazy and just believe the creeds without searching to see if it is so. Others study for themselves and find it is “explicit” in the scriptures.
Let me help you.
Plurality of persons; Gen. 1:26, Gen. 11:17, Isaiah 6:8
Unity of essence: Deut. 6:4 (Elohim, implied plurality)
Jesus is called God: John 1:1, John 10:30, John 20:28, 1 Tim. 3:16, Heb. 1:8.
Holy Spirit is called God: Romans 8:9, Heb. 9:14, 1 Pet. 3:18, 2 Pet. 1:21
Three named together in baptismal formula: John 1:27-34, Matt.28:19.
Yeah, that would be IMPLICIT, not EXPLICIT.
Thanks for playing.
Certainly not. I call it the way it is. The hatred and bigotry directed at Christ and His Church by those misguided and deceived individuals with malice in their hearts will always be identified for what it is....continued, unrelenting hateful attacks on Christ Himself.
The buzz word "hate" has been used so frequently it is no longer effective. It may be possible to convince the convinced but to what avail? Yet, if reason is lacking, there is no recourse except to go on the "hate" attack.
“Yeah, that would be IMPLICIT, not EXPLICIT”
Potentially to some, fully and clearly expressed to others.
As I said, study up on the definitions of "expressed" and "explicit."
And yet, if the reason is present and the hate is also present, it's not an attack, just a statement of fact.
Rather than begin a "20 question" approach cut right to the chase. :)
There is NO oak tree, sapling, or stump that has any resemblance to an acorn either.
The only way to be a church modeled after that of Acts chapters 2-7 would be to preach the same message.I don't see an argument to which this is the necessary conclusion. Consequently, the whole of this post seems to me to be a development of a particular point of view, a development which at first seems to be an argument but which upon further analysis is revealed as resting on a set of assumptions which are not necessarily Scriptural.
... after one has read the V-II comic books ...
Excuse me, the development appears to rest on not only assumptions which do not necessarily follow from Scripture but also mind-numbing gratuitous assaults. How is it good to deride the work of Vatican II? Can't one just disagree with it? Will it make communication more or less likely if gratuitous insults and derogations are thrown into the conversation? Did you indeed so learn Christ?
Yours is an interesting and compelling argument. Why give it a "price of admission" by adding insults and contempt to it? YES I know there's a lot of that going around. But when I read a remark like comic books of Vatican II then I think I am punished for the effort to try to understand and engage your argument.
Oh well.
I think the combination of “I cannot help but post as I do” with “If any one is hurt by what I post, it is because he deserves to be hurt or because he is too ill to defend himself,” is extremely perilous.
Certainly there is perilousness there.
And, I’m keenly constantly aware you and I have significant differences of perspective on that score.
I continue to be . . . inadequate . . . at figuring out a way of bridging the gap.
I appreciate your sentiments and sensibilities. I respect them. I cannot comply with all of them.
Nevertheles, I think, on the whole, there’s enough evidence of my heart’s transparency to construe my heart constructively . . . where there’s any capacity to do so.
I realize that I don’t fit tidy boxes. I never have.
Sigh.
And yet so many protestants reject Christ's clear instruction to "do this."
“I can’t help but post as I do.” is an inaccurate characterization, BTW.
I’m constrained rather forcefully to post as I do.
I have no peace about posting differently—in most respects.
I realize that in your construction of Christian reality, that doesn’t make any sense. I’m grieved by that. However, that grief does not remove what I experience as a responsibility and a duty—as troublesome as it is, from many aspects.
In those things which are clearly laid down in Scripture, all those things are found which pertain to faith and morals. (De Doct. Chr. 2:9)Let's see, OLD REGGIE describes himself as a Unitarian, yet enat says the Trinity is explicit in Scripture.
Whatever you hear from them [the Scriptures], let that be well received by you. Whatever is without them refuse, lest you wander in a cloud. (De Pastore, 11)
Discuss among yourselves the impact of "clearly laid down in Scripture."
Hmm...Could that be an example of "mind-reading" and "making it personal"?
We have hereon, some RC Reps who seem
decidedly
INCAPABLE [possibly unwilling—possibly both]
of even comprehending the letters that make up the words
“PERSONAL” “ATTACK”
as defined by the RM and the FR forum rules in general.
The blood red venom seems to persistently drip from every word of their repeated and relentless very overt direct and plenty of oblique ‘allowable’ personal attacks.
Yet, they are first to accuse also relentlessly any Protty who disagrees forcefully with virtually any RC anything—the first to accuse such disagreement as equalling horrific hate.
That flabbergasts more than a few Prottys.
1. It’s mind bogglingly hypocritical.
2. It’s the FR paragon example of thin skinned—again—by folks first in line to wail about Prottys being thin skinned for even slightly speaking up about the RC’s outrageously overtly personal attacks.
Most Prottys that I know don’t care a flip about personal attacks per se. Our skins don’t get pricked at all. We don’t care about our skins, our egos, our status, whatever. Just aren’t priorities.
We just care about the outrageous double standard and hypocrisy and have no desire to see it slip by unlabeled. We see some need for some accountability amongst the Christian Community hereon between each other on such scores.
There really is a caring aspect to it, however. It is outrageously spiritually horrific for such fiercely harsh, venomously personal bitterness, hatred, attacks to be so awash in such hypocrisy. Winking at it and looking away is NO FAVOR to the guilty.
Given all the givens, we have limited capacity to, in an FR kosher way, shine a spotlight on such outrageousness. But we do what we can.
BTW, I don’t see anyone too ill to defend themselves. All involved are plenty bright even if the personal insight level is in the 3rd basement down.
I suppose there is some element of “deserves to be hurt” from an objective standpoint. But that’s not the point.
We all deserve the cross. That’s not the issue.
Some behaviors warrant a different type of response tha others. They not only beg for it, they virtually require it, IF there’s a shred of a hope that the other person is going to have any chance of ever learning anything about their own stuff in the situation, at all.
I realize the learning curve is long and drawn out and not very promising. Folks can go decades as blind to the person in their mirror as an eyeless cave fish. Still, loving duty really does require us all to do what we can. For some, that may be teddy bears and linus blankets.
Personally, I love to give out teddy bears. Alas, in this category of situation, it’s not my role.
I realize it’s not only easy but seemingly automatic for you to discount, even trash wholesale my experience with such dynamics and personalities. I understand that. It’s OK.
I realize that the fruit of my style etc. with such dynamics and personalities is infrequent and takes an enormously long time to mature—years+.
I realize that even many Prottys consider me to be off the wall or perversely ornery or stupidly cheeky or worse.
How can I allow any of that to really deter me from what I’m convinced is my duty?
In those things which are clearly laid down in Scripture, all those things are found which pertain to faith and morals. (De Doct. Chr. 2:9)
Whatever you hear from them [the Scriptures], let that be well received by you. Whatever is without them refuse, lest you wander in a cloud. (De Pastore, 11)
INDEED
However, I assume that you realize that Augustine was a kosher RC except when he wasn't. And that he wasn't whenever the White Hankys blew left but he was when they blew right. OR was it the other way around. I never keep all these rubber dogmas straight.
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.