A lot of things are coming from within.
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.
Speaking for myself: false.
Does God know who will receive faith in Christ, and who will not, and yet does God create both those categories of men anyway?
And yet, Calvinists enjoy that thought. Sick, I know.
Calvin has stolen your free will from you.
I’ve often thought I’d like to see them in person. I really don’t know why except to see if they look as evil as they sound.
I am certain you will chase down the "Catholics" who followed enat around for several days insisting they had good reason to interrogate him further. One of them went so far as to post a link to a phony Diploma Mill with the slightly disguised charge concerning enat's credentials.
Considering who is asking, if I wanted to answer a personal question, I would. Additionally, the question assumes I have not been blessed already, as Esau was blessed.
It's probably best to leave off the personal questions, and answer the scriptural ones. Like, the command to leave a gift to God at the altar, and make peace with a brother before approaching God. But then, that has already been ignored so long everyone has given up.
***This is about YOU proving man has no free will.
It can’t be done.***
Given the vast majority of the NT, it most certainly cannot be done unless that majority is ignored or twisted.
It's difficult not to begrudge others their worldly possessions. But as you rightly point out, that is not what matters.
But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." -- Matthew 6:19-21"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
And in the very same chapter, Christ tells us that all prayers are answered and everything we seek we will find...
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." -- Matthew 6:33
Those who follow Him do very much prosper, according to God's will.
One out of two isn't bad.
Blessed as Esau was in Gen 36? Sure.
You have to know by now that they can’t so they will ignore it and live by their interpretation, true or not, because that is what they want it to mean and they want no evidence against it.
When most of your brand of faith relies on God, literally, in our understanding of the word, “hating” Esau, you can’t dig too deep. Cuz, heaven knows, you wouldn’t want to know the truth.
They wouldn’t be extra special anymore if they couldn’t convince themselves that they were elected and most aren’t.
Calvinists -- as nasty as they wanna be!
That's not Calvinism, nor what Calvinists believe.
When the RC apologist cannot support his beliefs from Scripture (which is generally all the time) the RC apologist is forced to resort to name-calling and making things personal.
Pity.
What, might I ask, is the definitive source for what Calvinists do and don't believe?
How do you know what all Calvinists believe? Why just the other day Calvinists decided that active homosexuality should be encouraged, where is that in Calvin's "Institutes"? John Calvin believed a great many things which you yourself don't believe (i.e. the Blessed Mother's perpetual virginity).
I am OLD REGGIE.
The person you are venting on is DR. Eckleburg.
I posted to Judith Anne and the words are mine.
There is no need to fill a reply to me with hate directed at another.
I have no interest in your trash.
I have no idea. What is the RCC? Good thing the Catholic Church has not "adopted paganism into herself."
"Development of Christian Doctrine" by Cardinal John Henry Newman We are told in various ways by Eusebius [Note 16], that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison [Note 17], are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church. {374}
Source (Section 2, subsection 6)
Outside of this extraordinary admission by a sainted and respected cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church, I would encourage everyone on the thread to read this entire work, as it gives a superb explanation as to the RCC's motive, however misguided it is/was as to the "inculturization" or "syncronization" (his words, not mine) of the RCC with several and various Pagan concerns. Among other things, the defense provided PLAINLY, though inadvertently, admits that statuary (images) was a later addition, certainly *not* practiced by the early Roman Church.
One can therefore extrapolate that there was also no "veneration" before statuary (no bowing down or praying before, no toe-slurping) in the early Church either.
So that is an explanation?...okie dokie...
Oh, that is RICH! The old pot calling the kettle black dodge. Very funny! Sort of like Catholics being told they worship Mary, because it suits the protestants' purposes. Seriously funny! I'm going to save that post, it's just hilarious!
I posted to Judith Anne and the words are mine.
You are correct, I thought you were defending Dr. E.
There is no need to fill a reply to me with hate directed at another.
I have no interest in your trash.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "hate" and "trash." All I did was repost Dr. E's original post, is that what you are referring to? After all, it is her post that twice used the word "hated."
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.