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.
“The Formula”
It scared me so much that I just put the formula away.
I'm sorry.
No wonder you agreed so quickly with me about women. 8~)
No big deal. :-)
I am slightly miffed. I thought my quote and comment were fair. but on to yours:
The reasoning put forth here is: "It's Christian now, because we say it is"... I wonder if that was Solomon's reasoning when he allowed his wives to plant their gods in the Temple of Jehovah...
"Sanctified" Paganism... Isn't that rather an oxymoron?
***”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...” ***
Now that is quick footwork. Scripture says ‘all men’ and not ‘all princes and kings’. Jesus will draw all men to Him when He ascends.
But you say, not all men will be saved. And you are correct. Therefore the problem is in the interpretation. A predestined future for all men is therefore incorrect because it only is supported by some of the verses in Scripture and strongly refuted by others.
***Does God regenerate all men?***
No. Nobody said He did.
***Is God’s saving grace to believe shed on all men? ***
Yes. His grace extends to all men.
***If that were true, there would be two saved thieves at Calvary instead of only one.***
Men are not robot slaves. Only one thief repented.
And were it not for the Vatican's slaughter of the Huguenots, France might still be Protestant today.
***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.***
Is ‘coming out’ a phrase that you meant w.r.t. the same sex issues? :)
All the same, it is going to be interesting, and probably a little bloody.
"In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth" -- 2 Timothy 2:25
If God gave all men saving grace, all men would be saved. Christ's atonement is sufficient for all the world, and efficient only for those whom God has graced with faith in Him.
Salvation by His grace through faith in Christ, as Paul tells us in Ephesians 2, is not of ourselves. It is a gift from God.
I think the legal angle was fascinating. America’s “original sin” strikes again!
Find "sanctified paganism" anywhere in Newman's writing (or mine). You've got it wrong there. He's referring to practices normally carried out for a pagan intent now carried out for the glory of God. He's saying those practices would have been thereby sanctified.
He's saying the power of the Almighty God, through His Church, can accomplish this.
... I wonder if that was Solomon's reasoning when he allowed his wives to plant their gods in the Temple of Jehovah...
That would have it backwards....like when Anne Rice (the occult novelist) bought a formerly Catholic church building to use for her purposes. See how that is similar to the Solomonic example you cited?
The king of France slaughtered the Huguenots, not the Vatican (Cardinals Richelieu and Mazarin were loyal only to themselves and their own interests).
[...] And St. Jerome asks Vigilantius, who made objections to lights and oil, "Because we once worshipped idols, is that a reason why we should not worship God, for fear of seeming to address him with an honour like that which was paid to idols and then was detestable, whereas this is paid to Martyrs and therefore to be received?"
THIS is good parts? The answer to the question above is NO. It is still, and always detestable. God says so.
“in the church against Christ...”
Reading comprehension problem or deliberate misrepresentation?
“...that exalteth himself in the church against Christ,”
I don’t know. You people are the masters of distortion.
Calvin created a man-made religion. That’s exalting himself while creating a God in his own image and likeness.
You pay no honor to martyrs?
Martyrdom is not honorable?
LOL!
Few books in the history of the world have been in continuous print longer than “Foxe’s Book of Martyrs.”
I'm not mind reading, I'm behavior observing and post reading.
So just keep in mind on what side of the Tiber that grassfire started.
What does that mean, and why would it matter?
Gutenberg's contribution wasn't his Bible. It wasn't even movable type. It was durable (lead) movable type. His process was duplicated everywhere, and that lead to cheap printing for future Protestant Bibles in the many languages necessary for the Word to be in the hands of the people.
***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***
Who knows what time we have left? The Dutch Empire was Protestant and most of the ones left aren’t Catholic at all. Interesting conjecture, that’s all.
***Some of the children of the Reformation do. I’ve experienced them even here.
Link please. ***
The last time it happened was during an exchange with forthedeclaration in which he informed me that the Bible had already judged me. Perhaps he would be good enough to provide that link.
***Idolatry. Always with the idolatry. Just look what happened to Israel***
A lot has, yet they are STILL identified as God’s chosen people.
***And the whole Sabbath thingy too***
We worship God on the Lord’s Day, not on Sabbath.
***Bowing down to Mary and the Pope***
Are you of the non-kneeling persuasion?
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.