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.
“These two ideas must be reconciled and the trouble is not with Scripture - it is in the interpretation.”
Agreed.
This is TOTALLY FALSE. The Black Death first hit Europe in Italy in 1347, it then spread across Europe over a period of about two years. Then there were recurrences about every ten years for the next century.
Something very profound lowered the population and prosperity of Medieval Europe (and only Medieval Europe) in a particular and sustained fashion. I would submit that the force responsible for that was in fact the iron fist of the Holy Roman Empire-
Your grasp of history is quite flawed. For not only did the Black Death hit Europe in the 14th Century, it came on the tail of a continent-wide famine which had also wreaked havoc. On top of this, the entire century was also consumed by the Hundred Years War which was a NON-RELIGIOUS war between England and France.
Additionally, the Holy Roman Empire was no more a Catholic state than, Spain, France or England. It WAS NOT under the control of the Church in any more than a nominal sense and it ONLY comprised central Europe.
And it isn't even the major events that I would point to- Consider this, If you would: Without any crusade or inquisition, to reach a death toll of 100m across 1260 yrs requires under 8,000 deaths a year in the whole of Europe- A number easy to surpass in a morality based system founded in fear and avarice, especially when one considers the bare fact that a sentence of mere imprisonment nearly guaranteed a death by starvation or disease (not considered in the death tolls btw).
What you fail to recognize is that your entire thesis is predicated upon a theory of something that NEVER HAPPENED.
The population of Europe was incrementally rising (sometimes rising moreso than others) through history. It plummetted during the 14th Century due to factors listed above. It stabilized in the late 15th and early 16th Centuries and has been rising ever since. Population increases are nearly always economic, as Europe moved away from the feudal system and the middle class grew, the population followed.
One thing you seem to conveniently overlook is the FACT that THERE WAS NO RELIGIOUS TURMOIL to speak of in Europe (the Great Schism really didn't affect most of Europe) prior to the Reformation. Hus and Wycliffe were ISOLATED events. There was no TV or internet, the average person had no idea they were even happening. The simple fact is that the average person in Europe prior to the 16th Century had no qualms with the Church whatsoever.
If you want to talk about the corruption and excesses of the Borgia popes, feel free to do so. But don't start attacking the Church for transgressions that NEVER OCCURRED.
I would hold the RCC to task for much in WWII.
The greatest tragedy the Church faced during WWII was the fact that so much of Germany was Lutheran and their were't enough Christians with true convictions there (the Lutheran minister Dietrich Bonhoeffer being a MAJOR exception) to stand up to evil.
As for your nonsense of what was done in the Americas, you might recall that the English colonists were nearly ALL Protestants and they killed the Indians and brought slavery to America.
***Where does the Bible say that the Gospels were transcribed directly from God?
I didn’t (yet) say that it was***
Yet? Scriptural proof please when you do.
***But you didn’t answer my question:
Which books contain neither prophecy, nor revelation of prophecy, nor direct instruction from God Almighty, as written down by His declared agents, with the direct intention of preserving those words for posterity?***
Do you mind if I take these one at a time?
Prophecy: not aware of any books which do not prophesy.
Direct instruction from God Almighty: not aware of any books which do not contain instruction.
Am not aware that the Gospel writers are declared agents. Can you show me Scripturally? Who was the declared agent of Genesis, Exodus, etc.
The realization that these should be written down for posterity did not occur for quite a while since the Jewish tradition of oral instruction existed for thousands of years and the fledgling Church thought that Christ’s return was just around the corner.
Reading through the various articles around the GAFCON formation and meeting, a number of them predicted an exodus of 1/4 to 1/3 of Anglicans from the Communion to form another Communion.
The number of those defecting would seem interesting - a sizeably minority versus a tiny fraction would be telling.
But I say nothing on that subject, because it has nothing to do with this passage; for the Apostle simply means, that there is no people and no rank in the world that is excluded from salvation; because God wishes that the gospel should be proclaimed to all without exception. Now the preaching of the gospel gives life; and hence he justly concludes that God invites all equally to partake salvation. But the present discourse relates to classes of men, and not to individual persons; for his sole object is, to include in this number princes and foreign nations. That God wishes the doctrine of salvation to be enjoyed by them as well as others, is evident from the passages already quoted, and from other passages of a similar nature. Not without good reason was it said, "Now, kings, understand," and again, in the same Psalm, "I will give thee the Gentiles for an inheritance, and the ends of the earth for a possession." (Psalm 2:8-10.) In a word, Paul intended to shew that it is our duty to consider, not what kind of persons the princes at that time were, but what God wished them to be. Now the duty arising out of that love which we owe to our neighbor is, to be solicitous and to do our endeavor for the salvation of all whom God includes in his calling, and to testify this by godly prayers."Hence we see the childish folly of those who represent this passage to be opposed to predestination. "If God," say they, "wishes all men indiscriminately to be saved, it is false that some are predestined by his eternal purpose to salvation, and others to perdition." They might have had some ground for saying this, if Paul were speaking here about individual men; although even then we should not have wanted the means of replying to their argument; for, although the will of God ought not to be judged from his secret decrees, when he reveals them to us by outward signs, yet it does not therefore follow that he has not determined with himself what he intends to do as to every individual man.
Since Scripture cannot contradict Scripture, Paul is here telling us that God's salvation is obvious for all men to behold, but only those who have been regenerated by the gift of the Holy Spirit will respond in faith.
"As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." -- Romans 9:13
As God wills.
Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour" -- Titus 3:5-6"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Does God regenerate all men? Is God's saving grace to believe shed on all men?
No. If that were true, there would be two saved thieves at Calvary instead of only one.
LOL.
They both had free will to choose to believe in Christ. One did not.
More sola Cauvin already?
The problem is the “working within” crowd and the walking apart crowd. Many more, even in the USA, would come out if the orthodox majority would just take a definitive coming out stand. They should act more like “Baptists”.
The early Christians say she was the New Eve and typology of the scripture matches. So it makes perfect sense that sin entered the world through disobedience and deception of eve that it would be fitting that the humblest of God's creatures(Mary) shall crush the head of the devil.
It's perfect that the “ole boy” the devil shall be crushed by a women ,the New Eve.
It seems to me that only male chauvinists would have a problem with this
lol. We conservative women actually have a lot that unites us. 8~)
The Diocese is hurting, of course, because of the defection of two of it's largest and wealthiest congregations.
I don't know how it's going to shake out. I have assisted or "supplied" at bunches of these congregations. It's just sad.
Present day Germany and Switzerland were both part of the Holy Roman Empire. So, if the Holy Roman Empire had been anywhere near as powerful as some claim both Lutheranism and Calvinism would have been crushed at their outsets.
If you like George C. Scott, have you ever seen “The Formula” with Scott and Marlon Brando?
Except I’m not a woman.
??? Ok... But where is the "power given for 42 months"? Protestants have been around a lot longer than 1260 actual days, and I doubt we have enough time left for Protestants to have power for 1260 years. The only empire the Protestants have had would be the British Empire, and perhaps the UK/US... but no 1260...
[We understand what the Word is and we do not deify it.] Neither do we.
Some of the children of the Reformation do. I’ve experienced them even here.
Link please.
[Walking away from the Church of Christ with Martin Luther does not bode well for one’s soul.] History would prove otherwise.
Would it? How so?
Idolatry. Always with the idolatry. Just look what happened to Israel... Bowing down to Mary and the Pope... And the whole Sabbath thingy too... False priesthood... *shakes head* Best to leave all that behind, just as the Bible says.
But Calvin’s a “church father,” and I know you’re partial to “church fathers.”
“The Diocese is hurting, of course, because of the defection of two of it’s largest and wealthiest congregations.”
The attorney for my church is representing churches in Connecticut that have joined CANA and is keeping our prayer group advised of the court case in Virginia.
Only by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit can men believe and be saved.
We are not saved by our good works, but by God's free, unmerited, predestined grace through faith alone. Ephesians 2.
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.