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.
You didn’t seem to address verse 12.
“In fact, the phrase “salvation by faith alone” has never been alien to Catholic theology.”
Whoa, who said anything about the Catholic faith? My statment was, “Any one who thinks that it is their good works and efforts that fits them for heaven”.
“***You have no idea what you are talking about.***
Izzat so?”
You are right, let me rephrase it.
You obviously don’t know what you are talking about.
Here is the GAFCON Declaration.
The Jerusalem Declaration
In the name of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit:
We, the participants in the Global Anglican Future Conference, have met in the land of Jesus’ birth. We express our loyalty as disciples to the King of kings, the Lord Jesus. We joyfully embrace his command to proclaim the reality of his kingdom which he first announced in this land. The gospel of the kingdom is the good news of salvation, liberation and transformation for all. In light of the above, we agree to chart a way forward together that promotes and protects the biblical gospel and mission to the world, solemnly declaring the following tenets of orthodoxy which underpin our Anglican identity.
1. We rejoice in the gospel of God through which we have been saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. Because God first loved us, we love him and as believers bring forth fruits of love, ongoing repentance, lively hope and thanksgiving to God in all things.
2. We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God written and to contain all things necessary for salvation. The Bible is to be translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading.
3. We uphold the four Ecumenical Councils and the three historic Creeds as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
4. We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.
5. We gladly proclaim and submit to the unique and universal Lordship of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, humanity’s only Saviour from sin, judgement and hell, who lived the life we could not live and died the death that we deserve. By his atoning death and glorious resurrection, he secured the redemption of all who come to him in repentance and faith. 6. We rejoice in our Anglican sacramental and liturgical heritage as an expression of the gospel, and we uphold the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as a true and authoritative standard of worship and prayer, to be translated and locally adapted for each culture.
7. We recognise that God has called and gifted bishops, priests and deacons in historic succession to equip all the people of God for their ministry in the world. We uphold the classic Anglican Ordinal as an authoritative standard of clerical orders.
8. We acknowledge God’s creation of humankind as male and female and the unchangeable standard of Christian marriage between one man and one woman as the proper place for sexual intimacy and the basis of the family. We repent of our failures to maintain this standard and call for a renewed commitment to lifelong fidelity in marriage and abstinence for those who are not married.
9. We gladly accept the Great Commission of the risen Lord to make disciples of all nations, to seek those who do not know Christ and to baptise, teach and bring new believers to maturity.
10. We are mindful of our responsibility to be good stewards of God’s creation, to uphold and advocate justice in society, and to seek relief and empowerment of the poor and needy.
11. We are committed to the unity of all those who know and love Christ and to building authentic ecumenical relationships. We recognise the orders and jurisdiction of those Anglicans who uphold orthodox faith and practice, and we encourage them to join us in this declaration.
12. We celebrate the God-given diversity among us which enriches our global fellowship, and we acknowledge freedom in secondary matters. We pledge to work together to seek the mind of Christ on issues that divide us.
13. We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed. We pray for them and call on them to repent and return to the Lord.
14. We rejoice at the prospect of Jesus’ coming again in glory, and while we await this final event of history, we praise him for the way he builds up his church through his Spirit by miraculously changing lives.
What I'm suggesting is that while "it is ... good works and efforts that fit [us] for heaven", taken simply, sounds like heaven and fitness for it depend on one's good works (internal and external)alone - or would at least admit of that interpretation, I want to present good works etc as originating in God and being HIS instruments (or some of them) for making us suitable for heaven (which is what I take "fit" to suggest.)
So my quote from Dr. Adams was not so much a defense as a presentation of a (the?) Catholic thinking, and his phrase "meritorious by grace" captures very well another aspect of it, in my alleged mind.
Oh. Okay. I stumbled. Gamaliel is saying the “good” healings, etc, could be happenstance or from the devil (who cannot heal, strictly speaking, but could, presumably, withdraw an affliction) OR they could be, so to speak thoroughly good, coming from God. So it’s not the work, in terms of what could be photographed or whatever, but the origin which makes the work salvific (in a secondary way). (I have thought of the “wood, hay, stubble” as not so much venal works as works of tainted wills, such as most of the “imperfect” redeemed have.)
I appreciate what you are getting at. I tried in my usual stumbling way not to distort any one’s faith but to answer a question. Many people believe that simply because they are doing “good works” that that is their ticket to heaven, the old “God helps those who help themselves” idea. Worse, many believe the “Invictus” creed is their ticket.
Most people would have simply apologized for what they said, you simply find it funny.
It is simply TERRIFYING to me how many Xtian edumicated personnel stick to that idea. And frustrating. Oh well.
??? "Most people" would have apologized for agreeing with someone's own wish for themselves? That makes no sense.
OTOH, "most people" would have the good sense not to misinterpret Scripture's clear meaning regarding Esau's supposed "many blessings."
And once "most people" are shown that God did not bless Esau, but in fact "hated Esau," "most people" would edit their remarks and redress their misstep and say thank you for correcting their faulty exegesis.
Not all people, obviously.
Some people apparently prefer to reside in error and misunderstanding, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
So if some people actually covet "one verse" of these purported "blessings of Esau," who are we to say they're not welcome to them?
The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts." -- Psalm 10:3-4
"The heart wants what the heart wants." -- Woody Allen"For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the LORD abhorreth.
In the words of one of your fellow compatriots, “Yes, I did.”
So, you believe the verse, but don’t follow it?
You bring up an interesting point that I wrestle with all of the time. Is what I am doing furthering the kingdom or or am I “just shoveling sh— in Louisiana” i.e. for my own benefit?
(I'm going to watch “Patton” for the umpteenth time as my tribute to the Fourth so I'm practicing my favorite lines.)
You know Milton's “On his Blindness”? It's my answer to the vocation quandary:
‘On His Blindness’
When I consider how my light is spent
Ere half my days in this dark world and wide,
And that one talent which is death to hide
Lodg’d with me useless, though my soul more bent
To serve therewith my Maker, and present
My true account, lest he returning chide,
“Doth God exact day-labour, light denied?”
I fondly ask. But Patience, to prevent
That murmur, soon replies: “God doth not need
Either man's work or his own gifts: who best
Bear his mild yoke, they serve him best. His state
Is kingly; thousands at his bidding speed
And post o'er land and ocean without rest:
They also serve who only stand and wait.”
— John Milton
“You know Milton’s “On his Blindness”
A great one to live by.
As you well know, modernism has seeped into both our churches and women have taken a greater role in the administration of the church, to the detriment of the church. IMO most women are more easily influenced by competing, worldly factors, and therefore can fall prey to whatever wind of change is blowing the strongest.
As Paul explains in the rest of 1 Timothy, Eve was the one who was deceived, not Adam.
It's no coincidence as women have taken more authority within the church, the church's salt has been diluted.
But the problem begins with the men who have chosen to take the easy way and thus have forsaken their God-given mandate to rule the church and the family, leaving both to flounder according to the prevailing current.
More's the pity.
So it should come as no surprise I like what Calvin wrote regarding women and the church...
"Two years ago, John Knox in a private conversation, asked my opinion respecting female government. I frankly answered that because it was a deviation from the primitive and established order of nature, it ought to be held as a judgment on man for his dereliction of his rights just like slavery — that nevertheless certain women had sometimes been so gifted that the singular blessing of God was conspicuous in them, and made it manifest that they had been raised up by the providence of God, either because he willed by such examples to condemn the supineness of men, or thus show more distinctly his own glory. I here instanced Huldah and Deborah." (John Calvin in a letter to William Cecil, 1559)
Then wishing it on me is your form of a curse.
Further, as I have explained to you, I did not wish for what Esau got. I wished that MarkBsnr and I could share just one verse of the Bible just about God's blessings for him and me.
So rather than think the better of it and apologize, today you repeat yesterday's curse AND yesterday's misrepresentation of my words.
“Some people apparently prefer to reside in error and misunderstanding, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.”
This, sadly, sums up the vast majority in ANY religious sect, denomination, etc. People only know what they’ve been told, accept as Truth what the familiar authorities have told them - it’s far easier than humbly seeking wisdom from God and seeking Truth from His revelation to us in the form of the Bible. It’s what Paul described as milk vs. solid meat.
Maybe you need to rethink what you're wishing for.
I’m wasn’t sure that I would ever say this, but I agree with your excellent analysis. :-)
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.