Ah the sound of a fresh sapling being smartly applied to lifeless horse flesh.
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.
I've read some of them, and some of the claims made against him are ludicrous - such as using sulfuric acid to create his Stigmata. Anyone who has worked with sulfuric acid (or sulphuric acid as a certain chap who considers himself a scientist called it) would know that said acid would have to be of extremely high concentration in order to do said job, not to mention the length of time and amount of pain involved, not the mention the difficulty in burning nice holes while leaving the rest of the flesh undamaged. Then there is the problem of necrosis and infection. It doesn't work like in the James Bond movies.
My mom was 100 percent Norwegian, tho her family, on both sides, had been here for generations....there were really just a couple of relatives still back in Norway, and every couple of years one of my grandmothers cousins would come to America for a visit...us kids used to love it when he came to visit, as we just got a kick out of his Norwegian accent...
My mom always wanted to visit Norway, but unfortunately she never got there...my parents traveled and tent camped extensively, and it seems that there was something else to see in America, so they never did travel outside of the United States, except for a few trips to Canada....but they sure had fun...
Gee, Marysecretary, is every post to you “bugging” you?
“Since they don’t believe in sola scripture, what you say about Mary has no effect on Catholics here on this forum. Don’t confuse them with facts. Their minds are made up. Love, M”
HUGS!
I appreciate the advice.
I’m sur emany have tried to get through to them. You don’t even have to be the dreaded sola scripture. You’d think that since the Bible states that, rather clearly that would end the discussion but apparently that’s not the case.
I’ll stick with HIS words rather than man’s words:
2Tim.3:16
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
It’s so ironic how they desise HIS WORD and elevate the word of fallible mortals. I suppose I’ll never understant that ... .
Hugs again your way.
All: do not make this thread "about" individual Freepers. That too is a forum of "making it personal."
Hugs gladly received and returned. Yes, it is sad that they take the word of man instead of the Word of God. No wonder there are so many heresies. I think it’s very sad.
No, only yours.
I was recently reminded not to make posts personal. Actually, ALL were recently reminded.
Well, I would imagine that a person who returns evil for evil is bad enough in that he is taking lawless revenge. However, a person who returns evil for good is of a particularly nasty sort. Not only will such a man be punished personally for his wicked deeds, but so will his posterity.
AMEN!
A sobering thought and principle, indeed.
Thx.
And I must admit that anything more contemporary than the venerable Bede is beyond my area of interest- but I can still hold my own, especially up through the reformation, having read much from original (albeit translated) sources.
Please consider that 2000 years ago, or even 500 years ago, that 95% to 99% of the population were uneducated serfs or slaves. They had no access to communication along trading routes.
And I will disagree most profoundly. The problem with your statement is found in the presence of large towns and even large cities throughout the region. Cities and towns must rely on the outlying countryside for miles around in order to simply exist- Everything ran on horsepower back in that day... Just the trade in horses alone, and the hay to feed them is a huge undertaking. Mills require raw logs; brick makers and potters require clay; butchers require beef, pork, venison, hare, and chicken; grocers require vegetables and grains... It may be that the lord owns the goods and the wagons, but you can bet money that those serfs are the poor buggars loading and unloading.
And traffic went the other way as well... the manors and the boroughs required exotics like spices and medicines, and there were services that traveled to outlying areas like bards and friars, tinsmiths and coopers...
Consider this, perhaps: If the communities were as isolated as you assume, how could the plague have spread so very quickly, and so very completely? Using the plague as an indicator, only Poland and parts of Austria were remote enough to have escaped it's clutches.
The very same vector pathways that spread the plague, also spread the news.
Here is the response I got in 11283:
Petronski: Luk 1:28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
I don't know, Petronski, I really don't see how this shows sinlessness, since by implication no other human (who was not also a deity) in history was ever "full of grace". That would mean David was not full of grace even though he was a man after God's own heart. There are countless other examples. Since my Bible doesn't use that term in Luke 1:28 (in fact the only one in my Bible being described that way is Christ Himself [John 1:14]), does your Bible elsewhere explain that "full of grace" means sinlessness?
Since an argument could be made that the Greek root words in Luke 1:28 and John 1:14 are similar I suppose the intent must be to draw a direct comparison of equality on this issue between Mary and Christ for this claim to hold. Jesus was sinless, and likewise Mary was sinless and was equal with Christ in this regard, AS OPPOSED to the rest of humanity. Then all the "Co-" words can start flowing.
“I think we prottys have all said that.”
That’s rich.
I suppose we can call you all “Lord.”
I did not say it was an insult, I asked if it was. Your hostility is evident.
The secular power of the papacy ebbed and flowed but generally expanded from the late days of the Roman Empire until it reached its peak under Pope Innocent III in the early 13th century. There had been a back and forth power struggle between the popes and Holy Roman emperors since the days of Charlemagne and Innocent III was able to use the death of the emperor and the confusion that surrounded it to assert control. Contrary to the beliefs of anti-Catholics, except for a few brief periods in history, from a political standpoint the papacy and the Holy Roman Empire would be considered ENEMIES, not allies.
From this high point, the secular/political power declined rapidly. Within a century, the papacy was completely under the thumb of the French kings. This is known as the Avignon Captivity, the French kings didn't interfere with the religious aspects of the Church, but they used the popes as pawns for secular and political reasons. This period covered nearly all of the 14th century. It was during this time that the French king had the pope condemn the Knights Templar because they had become too powerful.
Then there are the Borgia popes of the 15th century. Yes, they may have SEEMED powerful, but the truth is that they were constantly at war with Italian dukes for control of Italy. Someone who constructs their entire thesis upon the belief that the papacy "owned" Europe for fifteen hundred years might want to consider how absurd this is faced with the FACT that Italy itself wasn't even united as a nation until the 19th century, up until then it was a collection of city-states that were more often than not at war with each other (try reading Shakespeare, he wrote all about it).
Now, let's talk about the English Reformation. From the start, it really had NOTHING to do with any theological issues. Henry VIII wanted his marriage annulled and nobody really thought this would be a problem since royalty had routinely been able to obtain these. However, there was a catch, Henry's wife was Catherine of Aragon and she was the aunt of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V (who was also Charles I of Spain). In 1527, the Holy Roman Empire "sacked" Rome (this was during a conflict with the pope, something that really makes it difficult to assert that the pope was "in charge" politically) and put the pope in prison for several months. It was during this same period that Henry was seeking to end his marriage and here is where the catch comes in. Catherine of Aragon had given birth to Henry's children, if the marriage were annulled, the children would legally be bastards and Catherine would legally be a whore and her nephew (who was easily the most powerful man in the world as he ruled BOTH the Holy Roman Empire and Spain) would not allow this. So, ultimately the pope refused.
In conclusion, you can spin numbers any way you want but the it is still meaningless. Yes Catholic kings have killed a lot of people in Europe and that is because for over one thousand years EVERY European king was a Catholic. However, while popes certainly TRIED at times to control these kings, they almost never did. Am I denying the slaughter of the Cathars and others (it might be noted that while excommunicated, the Waldensians were PROTECTED by Italian noblemen AGAINST the pope's wishes, there was NEVER any widespread slaughter), certainly not. However, I am disputing their significance outside of their regions and the numbers killed.
There are those who believe he was a fraud and are unwilling to believe anything "good" about him.
Then there are the skeptics, I am one, who say "nothing has been proven".
BTW what is the difference between sulphuric acid and carbolic acid? I read "carbolic acid" on one "anti" site.
Great points as usual . . .
The toothpick splinter
FULL OF GRACE
or gra es . . . OR SOME SUCH . . . obviously such a toothpick splinter is SUCH a SUBSTANTIAL microscopic little pebble of a foundation to build all manner of edificial skyscrapers on. Lofty towers from which to power-mongeringly lord it over all and sundry. Particularly all those escaping the rack and the firebrands. Durn their uncharred hides.
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.