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.
OK I read it, now what?
But isn't that in the end a prayer to Mary? Even if you "ask her to pray" in your prayer to her?
No evidence required. Just common sense.
No written writings from authority, just from literature considered heresy (Written CENTURIES after the fact) by your own church fathers/Popes. Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Melito, Cyprian, Athanasius, Augustine, Theodoriet, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom all closer to the times never mentioned/taught about an assumption of Mary. But 1800-1900 years later from their time it is know considered damnable. Yeah right.
So this "longing" for a "female deity" was really just a longing for a vertical, illuminated bathtub?
You ever hear of Byzantium? Armenia was a part of that empire.
No, not really. It adopted Christianity long before Byzantium amounted to anything (in fact, Armenia adopted Christianity as its state religion before Rome did, and was the first nation in the world to do so), and was an independent kingdom at the time. And Armenian Christianity permanently parted ways with the West (including Byzantium) after Chalcedon in 451.
Who is called “the woman” in Genesis 3, and what is prophesied concerning “the woman”.
Absolutely ... I will always make judgments when it comes to my soul. The reason is that I will have to be the one to answer before God as to my beliefs and as to how I lead my life. Not only do I have to judge the belief systems that are presented to me, I would venture that each person has the implied obligation to judge the beliefs of others so that they can determine for themselves what beliefs they will follow. In this sense judgment means - the ability to judge, make a decision, or form an opinion objectively, authoritatively, and wisely, esp. in matters affecting action; good sense; discretion
However, specifically to the point of “vain repetitions”, it is not judgment that one is asserting as to the clear understand of plain English or Greek. The plain meaning of words and understanding them is lexicon and linguistics. In this case the us of vain follows the archaic meaning of senseless or foolish. Repetitions means saying things over and over and over.
So when we read the passage in context we also find that reason for not uttering vain repetitions is that the pagans believe that there “many words” will produce more effective results.
My observations of Catholics who repeat Mary’s prayer over and over again, do so with the expectation that the amount of prayer while somehow increase the amount of intercession on their behalf. If that does not meet the linguistic definition of “vain repetitions”, I don’t know what can. While that is their choice and in my opinion does not rise to the level of a sin, I have STRONG objections to the priesthood directing the faithful to utter such prayers in direct contravention of Jesus teachings.
Further, you are attempting to insinuate that some how the correct and proper interpretation of the lexicon is some how in error because of the false assertion of “judgment” is patently false and miss leading. It seems very much like a page from the liberal play book by attempting to distract from the original premise.
By quid I assume you mean money? Yes, in our materialistic world, money is truth or rather it can buy shades of truth propaganda in the mass media.
Just to be clear, that's *one* book, which contained lots of fanciful stuff in addition to the Assumption, and its condemnation specified nothing about any erroneous doctrines in it, but only that it was "written and used by heretics".
It isn't the only source for the dogma, or the main one, or necessarily even the earliest one.
When you boil it all own, we are still at the same place. You assume that Catholics pray in a vain way, you assume what their "expectations" are.
Care to ask any real Catholics on this thread what they really believe?
And also remember "It is appointed that a man dies once and after this comes Judgement". Since the Judgement has not come, all believers not currently alive await that Judgement (A judgement of rewards).
Praying to the dead is expressly forbidden in Scriptures. Do you not remember Samual's judgement of Saul for attempting to do so??
Our Lord Jesus Christ rightly said - when you pray, say OUR FATHER, WHO ART IN HEAVEN, it is the Holy Spirit who takes prayers to the Father, and the Son who Advocates before the throne on our behalf.
No One else has the Power to hear our prayers.
When we read it in the Greek we find that the word battalogeo has nothing to do with "repetition," vain or otherwise, and was mistranslated by the KJV translators.
Before Jesus’ death, the spirit of those who were saved were in Hades, waiting for Jesus to lead the captives out of captivity and into heaven.
Setting aside Purgatory, I enjoy your post. However, I'm curious why you do not see our perspective? Those who die in Christ are in Heaven - you agree with that. I'm assuming you believe that those in Heaven can hear us? If they cannot, what was the Psalmist doing commanding Angels? (Ps. 148, for example)
If the souls of those departed are still alive and Heaven can hear us, why not ask them to help bring your requests before God? If they are with God, are they not especially Holy? And aren't the prayers of especially Holy men and women more effective? (James 5:16)
but if I were going to do so, I’d pray to one that I knew from life, not somebody that some church labeled a “Saint”.
The Church just merely confirms the place of the person in Heaven by labeling them a Saint. It is just a recognition of an honor already achieved. You should pray to those you knew in life - asking your deceased family members who are now with God is a very common thing amongst Catholics. However, why not suppliment that by asking some of His greatest servants too? Mary is just the greatest of His servants, so she gets a lot of calls.
BTW, you are one of the more clear posters on this thread, despite your differing views on things. Thank you for that.
Because I wanted thoughts from both Catholics and Protestants.
Maybe yes - maybe no. There are plenty of spiritual leaders whose followers are drawn merely by the aura, or persona of the leader. These types of followers are not so much interested in knowing God as they are in being "spiritual" (or being thought of as spiritual).
The problem is that we humans will by nature "worship" another - and not necessarily God (hence the 1st & 2nd commandment).
We must always be vigilant to ensure that we not become idolaters - of our spouse, our children, our possessions - or our priest/pastor/saint.
A: These verses use what is known as phenomenological language, the language of appearances. Phenomenological language occurs when we describe something as it looks, irrespective of how it is. The classic example of phenomenological language is talk of the sun rising and setting. The sun appears to rise and set , but this motion is actually due to the rotation of the earth rather than to motion of the sun around the earth.
Verses that speak of the dead sleeping use phenomenological language. For example, Daniel 12:2 states, "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." This image is of people getting up much as a sleeper rises in the morning. The sleep being discussed is phenomenological sleep, not literal sleep (Daniel is not talking about living people who sleep on the ground). Because dead people look like they are sleeping, especially when lying on their deathbeds (and notice that people often die on beds, enhancing the sleep analogy), the Bible often uses "sleep" as a euphemism for "death." In fact, this euphemism is common today.
There are two versions of the :soul sleep" theory.
The Jehovah's Witness claims that the soul ceases to exist at death and then is re-created by God at the resurrection. If their theory were true and there were no soul which survives death, it is difficult to see why the re-created "you" is not just a copy of you. It may have all your memories, but it is hard to see why it is not just a copy. If God had created this copy while you still existed, the fact it is a copy rather than the real you would be obvious.
If it is a copy, that causes problems of justice. Because you ceased to exist, you--the real you--were never punished for your sins or rewarded for your good deeds; you simply ceased to exist. Similarly, the copy of you which was created on the Last Day is then punished or rewarded for things it never did.
Once one has distinguished between the Jehovah's Witnesses' view and the view that claims that our souls simply sleep between death and resurrection, one can go on to refute these ideas by using the Bible. The following verses apply to both versions of the doctrine.
In Revelation 6:9-10, John writes, "When he [Christ] opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne; they cried out with a loud voice, 'O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before thou wilt judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell upon the earth?'"
Here John sees the disembodied souls of early Christian martyrs. The fact they are disembodied is known because they have been slain. Thus disembodied souls exist. The fact they are conscious is known because they cry out to God for vengeance. Unconscious people can't do that. Thus conscious, disembodied souls exist.
In Revelation 20:4 John sees these souls again: "Then I saw . . . the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word of God and who had not worshipped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years."
Here again we have disembodied souls (they had been beheaded). John sees them coming to life to reign with Christ--hence they are in a pre-resurrection state. Some scholars argue that this is a spiritual resurrection rather than a physical one. Even if that were so, it would only strengthen the case for conscious, disembodied souls because, after having been beheaded, they would be reigning with Christ in heaven in a disembodied state.
Not that is an interesting assertion and one that I have not heard before. Allow me some time for research.
My observation is that your observation is of Americanized Catholicism. Philippines Catholicism (Filipinized Catholicism) is much, much different. The level and manner of “devotion” to Mary is immensely greater and deeper, and millions of Filipinos would never think it strange to have their devotion directly labeled, “worship.”
It is my observation that the outward manifestations of Catholicism change in various places in the world.
From Manila to Lipa City, Batanga Province to the south is only 45 miles. In the usual traffic flow it takes about two hours to travel that distance. But I have seen it take SIX hours to go that 45 miles because of one procession for Mary where thousands are clogging the two lane highway waiting for a chance to kiss the statue’s toe. The mail doesn’t get delivered. Delivery trucks with perishables have to dump their contents. Ambulances cannot get through with heart attack victims on board. because they were behind the procession for Mary
No statue of Jesus. Only Mary. Thousands are bowing and kissing the idol, and genuflecting and and speaking in a way that can only be described as “Worship.”
[945]
1) to stammer
2) to repeat the same things over and over, to use many idle words, to babble, prate. Some suppose the word derived from Battus, a king of Cyrene, who is said to have stuttered; others from Battus, an author of tedious and wordy poems.
Do you have some other translation?
By you perhaps. My only comment in response to your description of your experiences in the Philippines is that you should be ashamed of yourself for spreading your heresies in the land where my father came from.
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.