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.
LOL.
By what or whom? Unless there is a claim that the Holy Spirit is doing the "forceful constraining" then the cause oould be demonic, pathological, or both.
have no peace about posting differently—in most respects.
Change, especially in a positive direction, is always painful and difficult, nevertheless, it is worthwhile!
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.
Yet, when a poster receives in return what he is dishing out to others, he claims to be the victim.
A lot of folks are getting pretty sore about being treated as they have treated others, at having their confessions dissected as bluntly as they have lied about others.
So I notice. Lord Jesus Christ, I confess to the sin of schadenfreude. I confess that I am unable to be sorry for it and deeply wish I were good enough to be. Please forgive my lack of love, and instill in me Your Spirit of Mercy.
Just dandy. I did an acre in an hour. Working off and on, doing the trim. Sure looks nice.
s/b “Working off and on, doing the trim now. Sure looks nice.”
This winter I found I could no longer use a walk-behind snowblower so I bought a seperate lawn tractor with a 40" snowthrower attachment.
I decided to use two different machines to eliminate the need to break down and assemble the "snow" and "grass" appliances each season. (I can't do it myself and would have to pay someone about $300-$400 a year to do it for me. The lawn tractor costs not much more than $1,000 so I believe the two machines are justified. Besides, I like new toys.) :)
Of course I no longer had room in my garage for "toy" storage so I had to have a carport built for the machines. Oh well I no longer spend money on wine, women, and song. :)
I have two flat, rectangular yards, and I go medium fast with a high cutting speed on the blades. I have a 42” TroyBilt, no wider than yours on the cutting deck. I did some of the trim around the cabin and the house the other day, and I just have left the stuff by the road, outside the white fence, left to do. Up until this year, I was using a gas push mower to do it all, and finally, I no longer can.
I got the mower from Lowes, the day I went they had 10% off, so it was a nice deal. My lawn is easy, no bumps/hills, so it’s a bit quicker, plus these brand new blades are SHARP!
I don’t spend any money on wine, women or song either, although I do like my mani-pedis. :D
***Credentials? LOL!
Christ instituted His church by His life and death and resurrection. ***
And the Holy Spirit commissioned it at Pentecost to Peter and the other Apostles in the upper room.
***Some churches are closer to the absolute truth of God, and some are very far away, indeed.***
I trust that the OPC is liberally supplied with high powered telescopes.
***No one says the WCF is “sacred.” ***
You people are amazing; not only do you not understand Paul and not only do you ignore most of the Gospels, you apparantly don’t know what your religion stands for. http://opc.org/confessions.html says that:
Officers in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church take a vow to “sincerely receive and adopt” these confessional documents “as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures.”
If I recall properly, you guys claim that the Holy Spirit dictated Scripture. Therefore the doctrines taught in the Holy Scriptures are taught by the Holy Spirit. You just said that that WCF is not sacred. So the doctrines taught by the Reformed Holy Spirit are not sacred? You guys just amaze me.
***Since you cannot challenge its premise or its teaching, you defame it.***
I have in the past not just challenged it, but refuted it, not only by the teachings of Jesus but that of Paul as well (since the children of the Reformed worship Paul rather than Christ).
***I have asked you several times on the practices of Reformed prayer and have met with silence.
That, of course, is another fabrication on your part. You have been given answers every time you concoct some semblance of a question. ***
Go ahead and prove it. You have, to my recollection, given nothing in the semblence of a cogent answer. Hint: a cogent answer is: once per day at bedtime, or, at every meal, or, just before football on Sundays when the Presbyterian Prats play the Calvinist Clubs.
***Protestants, reformed or not, do not believe in the idolatrous practice of the RCC which encourages prayers to assorted dead people, rather than to God alone, as we are instructed in the Bible.***
I’ve been to many Protestant services which consist of either haranguing the congregation or else telling them that the most important thing in the world is to feel good. Prayers, Jesus, and doctrine seemed like options in a basic world.
***The Calvinists exalt themselves and claim that only they shall be saved.
No Calvinist states that or believes that lie. Only the elect will be saved, according to the will of God.***
I appear to be either lying a lot or else I’m right on the money. There isn’t an individual Calvinist that doesn’t believe that they shall be saved; they do not extend that belief to include others. Do you?
We differ on the makeup and numbers of the elect; we also differ on the mechanism.
I have three statements that leave me thinking about the process of decision making and blah blah.
And as you say, "You know my methods, Watson," so you know that gives me the major heebie-jeebies.
I'm guessing that a major aspect of SOME charismatic, what shall I say, decision making process is a feeling of peace. And I'm thinking about People who run TO the sound of guns and people who run FROM the sound of guns, and the sort of Myers-Briggs polarities and, well, just wondering about diversities of gifts and all like that.
Especially, I'm thinking about theology. I would say Kierkegaard is one of the most beautiful and poetic theologians since Augustine (at least to judge by passages in the Confessions.) But in general I think that theology, as such, ought to be boring, almost. It makes me crazy (crazier?), when I do a thing about the Love of God, and the duty of an Xtian to remember it always, and somebody says, "Oh, that's beautiful!"
I want to say, "Well, yeah God and His Love are beautiful, but I'm giving nothing more beautiful here than marching orders. This isn't poetry, this is what you should do when you stub our toe or lose all your money or something. This isn't about pretty, it's about saving your behind self, darn it!"
I tend to think that a theologian should only allow himself to wax poetic when he is out at the edge of his reason and can speak no other way to say what he thinks needs to be said.
I come from the Vulcan school of Theology, I guess. "Fascinating, Jim."
Pastorally, I guess I don't always have the courage, but my tendency is to go where I am the most anxious.
There's maybe a little self-delusion and flattery here, but I'm imagining myself saying "Time enough for feeling peace later. Now there is war to be waged or adventure to be undertaken."
So, I don't know. It's different. I know I pretty much felt gutted when it became clear that I had to leave the Episcopal church and blow up my alleged career. But going towards emotional evisceration seemed like the right thing to do. "Feels like a cross, with splinters of wood digging into where I've already been whipped. Yep. That's the right direction."
But, yeah, in principle I agree. It's a wonderful gaffe because you know what he means but he so obviously flubs it.
***[Concept of sola scriptura] In their haste, many good people will mistake “invent” for “champion”. The concept is wrong; the Church obviously didn’t could not squash it the way it ought to have been could when it had the trappings of empire. ***
A little lesson.
The phrase “the trappings of empire” means that one has the appearance of one, without actually having it. Therefore your sentence “the Church obviously didn’t could not squash it the way it ought to have been could when it had the trappings of empire” makes as little sense as does most Protestant theology.
Is this yours?
Not sure how to respond at present.
Appreciate your tone and thoughtful cogitations.
I was virtually at the edge of articulate coherency trying to put my thoughts in discernable form the last time. I don’t know that I can manage it to the ‘next level’ at present vis a vis you narrative.
Maybe some quick hazarded comments . . .
1. Certainly there’s a capacity to post in a variety of ways. I think you’ve experienced me mostly pleasant with you for quite a number of posts, now.
It feels like there’s many paragraphs of therefore what’s to follow but I have no articulation of them handy at the moment.
A couple of Friends asked me to post differently in a certain context and terms . . . kind of as a brotherly suggestion, request. Not a coercive order from an elder brother—A request more or less peer to peer—one maybe more of a spiritual exhortation to a degree. I try and check out in my spirit whether I feel a peace about doing so and I comply as much as lies within me at all. The other side on the receiving end seems to be less than happy with that but that was expected, regardless.
A Pastor friend once suggested FOLLOWING AFTER PEACE. There’s a Scripture to that effect. I don’t recall the ref. When I manage to do so fittingly, it usually works out better.
Otherwise, to wait until one feels His peace within. Peace in the midst of storm and pressure can be an interesting exercise to learn, regadless.
2. Outside force can be accurate and inaccurate. One could talk about it strictly in terms of long hard experience—and the resident internal memories associated with that. One could talk about His still small voice within. It’s mostly a subtle press. Sometimes more intense than others but not at all the crass insistent pressuring coercive stuff of the enemy.
3. Depends on a lot of things. Sometimes, the issues are not so stark or important seeming and it feels more like a choice between vanilla vs chocolate ice cream. Sometimes it feels like very serious eternal destinies are involved. WHEN I feel like Holy spirit is declaring something more directly, more overtly, more pointedly, then I dare not go against it else I’d lose a great deal of peace. If it’s more a 51% chocolate over vanilla choice . . . it’s usually not a big issue about peace being lost one way or the other.
Of course, many situations have a collection of cross currents of perceptions and discernments to sort out. And I’m far from flawless in such.
I dont know that I can even sort out definitively all the time the difference between an intense sort of . . . press . . . inner sense of an urge that a given path is the correct one at the moment . . . born out of tons of experience vs a starkly independent press from Holy Spirit within me. The differences can be subtle at times.
Of course when Holy Spirit almost audibly ‘yells’ STOP before the Mack truck mows me down—that’s clear. But that’s not that common.
***The thing about the Papist religion...it’s hugh. It’s really really hugh and in a lot of ways.***
Hugh in what way? Hugh Hewitt? Hugh Hefner? Hugh Laurie?
***Not only are there a billion people in it, there is a vast network of doctrines and mysticisms and rituals. ***
A Dungeon Master ought to know all about mysticisms and rituals.
***It’s hugh and complicated and it appeals to people that are fascinated by the hugh and complicated.***
Witness the outrage of the Protestant hughs on this topic.
***The gospel is simple and I’ve heard one papist after another offended by simplicity as if that is intellectually inferior.***
The Gospel is what Jesus instructed us. Matthew chapters 5 through 9 is a good start for the apostate.
Matt 7:
21
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, 10 but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.
22
Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’
23
Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. 11 Depart from me, you evildoers.’
24
12 “Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock.
25
The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock.
26
And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand.
27
The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined.”
It is not enough to simply believe; one must do the will of the Father.
***”The Church, instituted by the Lord and confirmed by the Apostles, is one for all men; but the frantic folly of the diverse impious acts sects has cut them off from her. It cannot be denied that this tearing asunder of the faith has arisen from the defect of poor intelligence, which twists what is read to conform to its opinion, instead of adjusting its opinion to the meaning of what is read. However, while individual parties fight among themselves, the Church stands revealed not only by her own doctrines, but by those also of her adversaries. And although they are all arranged against her, she confutes the most wicked error which they all share, by the very fact that she is alone and One.
All the heretics, therefore, come against the Church; but while all the heretics can conquer each other, they can win nothing for themselves. For their victory is the triumph of the Church over all of them. One heresy struggles against that teaching of another, which the faith of the Church has already condemned in the other heresy, - for there is nothing which the heretics hold in common, ‘ and the result is that they affirm our faith while fighting among themselves.”
Saint Hilary of Poitiers... The Trinity, 7:4, 356 A.D.. Jurgens 865
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
I Timothy 3:15***
Applause. This is the manner and the approach which will bring the heathen, the heretic and the apostate to God.
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.