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.
That’s because the Sacrifice of the Mass IS the Sacrifice of Calvary. They’re one and the same.
Really? That's a very bold statement to make without a source to back it up.
Have you ever visited the Pantheon in Rome? This magnificent structure was built to honor the many gods and goddesses that the Romans worshiped and adored. The goddesses Juno and Isis were especially revered. Introducing a new state religion to the Roman masses based on a single (or uniplural) male god was simply too radical and unnatural.
The male chauvinist authors and redactors of the Torah eliminated Ashtoreth as a deity.
Really? I thought the Jews avoided worshiping pagan goddesses because they were false. That sentence implies: 1) there is truly such a goddess, 2) that Judaism is masking the truth by eliminating her.
I said the ancient Israelites. The Jews or Judaeans came later after the Babylonian exile during which time they wrote their scriptures and devised a new boxy alphabet to replace the north semitic script that they had used.
Is Ashtoreth a living goddess? Probably not. But I always try to keep an open mind.
It's not another sacrifice, it's the same sacrifice as occurred on Calvary.
Well, actually, no.
Then you're all but saying that the early Christians spread their faith in futility.
That makes sense. My attitude towards prayer is very similar to yours.
Isn't Isis an Egyptian goddess? Or did you mean the company Isis Pharmaceuticals? I don't think they were around in ancient Rome.
Now, you asked:
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?
Yes, always. But I don't call my friend, and ask him to pray for me, then call back 49 more times and ask him again and again. He gets it the first time.
That is why I will never see praying the Rosary the exact same way as my Catholic brethren. Yes, it is based upon Scripture, but the ratio of Hail Marys to Our Fathers seems to be tilted too far in favor of Hail Marys. Like I said, she would get it by about the fifth time. :-) I mean, if she is praying for us 23 hours a day now, do we want her also giving up her lunch hour too? (Okay, I'll stop being a smart ass, but you get my point).
I am also aware of the meditative aspect of the Rosary, and that the original procedure was to read Psalms. To me, that would make much more sense, and as an evangelical I could see much value to that.
But that's all I'm going to say. I am happy for you and wish you the best as a brother in Christ.
Understood.
You are right that I have much to lean.
Don't we all!
Scott Hahn’s book “Hail, Holy Queen” explains Catholic Doctrine on Mary quite well, though your basic understanding from your post seems to me to be pretty good.
I'm not hung up on the "worship" aspect, or the "equality" aspect. It's the basic assumption of the doctrine that Mary has anything whatsoever to do with a person's salvation.
And my problem with it is that there is nothing in scripture to give any indication that Mary has anything to do with "channeling graces", or her being involved "through her prayers".
I also am not hung up on the distinction between dogma and doctrine, but whatever you call them, the concept of the assumption and the immaculate conception are similarly flawed by a lack of scriptural evidence.
Sure, an angel said to Mary, "blessed are you among women". But if you believe that gives Mary a leg up because some angel revered her, certainly you have to put on a higher plane people who Jesus said were blessed. Which is a large group of people, according to the beatitudes. "Blessed are you, when men shall revile you" -- Jesus as God trumps a mere creation of God in providing blessings.
Of course, Jacob got the blessing of God as well, so maybe we should be praying to him - but he had to fight Him for it, so maybe it doesn't count :-)
I admire the way the Catholic Church has woven it's traditions. They had a hundreds of years to perfect it, of course, but it's not a trivial task. All you need is some authority to explain how things mean one thing some places, and other things other places, and you've got yourself a solid foundation for a whole host of "interesting" beliefs.
No, I haven't, but I'd love to.
I might buy your argument, except that Mary was revered far earlier than the widespread adoption of Christianity. Also, she was revered in places (as another poster mentioned) like Armenia (Armenians) and Egypt (Copts). Roman mystery religion just doesn't explain it; likewise, if you were correct, the early Christians would have had no issue with priestesses (yet Christianity never had them) nor with offering sacrifice to the Saints (which as a poster mentioned was explicitly condemned as heresy).
I said the ancient Israelites. The Jews or Judaeans came later after the Babylonian exile during which time they wrote their scriptures and devised a new boxy alphabet to replace the north semitic script that they had used.
That's what all the nonsense about redactors was. IIRC, conservative Christians of all stripes reject such a widespread revision of the OT. Too much emphasis on the historical-critical method in your theory for my liking.
Is Ashtoreth a living goddess? Probably not.
Ashtoreth is a false and made-up deity at best, and a demon at worst.
But I always try to keep an open mind.
Not too open... because you don't want anything running out.
Why did you ping me?
She sure has. When I was a kid, all of the old bathtubs wound up stacked vertically in peoples back yards with a little statues inside. Many were illuminated with spotlights.
The Romans needed a female deity to assuage the heathen masses and so Mary was elevated to that exalted perch. So how did the Armenians and Ethiopians, who were never under Rome in any capacity, end up with their deep reverence for Mary?
You ever hear of Byzantium? Armenia was a part of that empire.
I've seen several people say that here, but I don't know that it's true. I know my church includes prayer as an appropriate act during worship, but we are also taught to pray individually, and to petition God for our needs, which I suppose some could equate to a "worshipful thing", but practically speaking, it's asking for help.
Before I say anything else, I must say that I appreciate that you're willing to discuss this so respectfully.
The part I bolded is the key phrase. That is the purpose of the Church and her Magisterium: to clarify these points. That's why the early Church never held something akin to "Sola Scriptura;" Christ passed His authority to teach on to the Apostles, and they in turn passed it to their successors, the bishops throughout the world, headed St. Peter's successor, the Pope. The Scriptures are not a dead letter, nor are they so vague that they cannot be understood, but they need an authority to be understood with certainty.
The Mass is not killing Jesus regularly at all! Once again, the protestants totally misunderstand.
The Eucharistic Ceremony is the re-distribution of the offering that Jesus gave His Apostles at the Last Supper. We are to offer it “in memory of Him”.
His sacrifice on the cross happened only once, but His gift to us is to last forever.
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.