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.
Clarify, please. It seems to me that I forgot to include Gargantua in the address line and/or was confused by the fact that Dr. E had interposed herself into my conversation.
In any event I see it was Dr. E. who claimed the magnificent Jesuit education for her husband. Gargantua just claimed superior knowledge on the basis of having been raised Catholic, received my First Communion and my Confirmation.While she certainly has a right to refuse to develop the evidence she herself introduces to impeach me, I certainly have a right to ask for it, and asking one time is not insistence.
Further, when evidence is adduced and then withdrawn that is more provocative of speculation than no evidence at all. Why bring up the education if it is not relevant. If it IS relevant, why not develop it. As it is the Jesuit education though mentioned indicate nothing whatsoever about the quality of catechesis.
And that is not an insistence, it is an observation.
Have another beer.
That's not insistence. Asking it several times would be insistence. Asking it once is, well, asking it once.
If his degree was in engineering and he took one course on the OT and another on the Epistles of Paul, then he's no more qualified than anyone to speak authoritatively on what the sacrament of penance is or on the distinction between the penance assigned in confession and the whole sacrament.
If there is going to be claim made on the basis of education, let's hear about the education. I'm perfectly content to argue the case on its merits, but if somebody wants to make it ad hominem, why then let's see the hominem ad quem.
She brought up the education. If SHE brings it up, SHE can be questioned on it. If some reluctance or shame leads her not to want to develop it further, that's fine.
I have only asked once. I say again: To call that insistence is nonsense.
Say what you will. I will not waste my time on this.
Meanwhile, the entire discussion is derailed for a hissy fit. I’m sure the instigator finds it hilarious. And still has not backed up the claim.
So, thank you, Reggie. Sincerely. I mean that. No, really.
PS, my son had a Jesuit HIGH SCHOOL education, for heaven’s sake. It was excellent, but it wasn’t advanced theology.
My father had a Jesuit Masters Degree education. Again, NOT theology, pre-law.
Look where this insatiable desire to dominate has taken them. They are now the church of a non believing continent. The demographics in Europe are a disaster for them.
The last best hope for them is in Central and South America and that is changing as more and more people there hear The Gospel. Christianity grows from preaching The Gospel not at the point of a sword.
You have to give them credit. They succeeded in keeping most of mankind in the dark for over a 1000 years.
Thanks. A Jesuit edumication is no guarantee of theological knowledge. That should be a "duh!" but we are dealing with folks whose method is "Accusation first. Delay evaluation of evidence as long as possible."
Thank you for your beautiful testimony. Love, Mxxx
Wonderful. Thank you.
Sounds good enough to me, Judith Anne. Hey, I thought you left FR? Did you miss us?
And still nothing from the instigator. Typical.
I guess it’s apparently possible to get the cachet of a “Jesuit education” via marriage vows.
The Jesuits are fine as far as they go, but for theology, I prefer Cistercians. Those gentlemen are simply the best (Sorry, St. Francis).
Indeed. That includes Mary.
I’ve been over it once, I’m not going over it again, and no.
LOL!
Certainly no more than yours have been about Quix and other prottys you don’t like.
Ah, we’re sorry you’ve been so hurt by that treatment, Petr.
OH? It forbids its priests to marry. Aren’t they part of the church?
Count their points? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
How many of these posts are from Catholics, BOF? Hmmm.
Yeah? Catholics worked right along with him as well. We’ve seen the photos...
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.