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 believe you.
Just another sister in Christ who happens to be His mother, you mean.
Sure, just like all the others...
Perhaps there's an example you can point to, of a Catholic "shucking and jiving" anywhere on this thread?
Mammy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stick around for the Mr. Tambo/Mr. Bones exposition of the Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament later—it’s a real show-stopper!
“I will be all things to all men so that I can win just one to Christ.”
ROFL!
Okay, we have one. I stand corrected. :D
I just found Quix’s use of the phrase so ... interesting. I actually looked it up on Yahoo Answers, and found the following:
_____________________________________________________________
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
“To shuck and jive” originally referred to the intentionally misleading words and actions that African-Americans would employ in order to deceive racist Euro-Americans in power, both during the period of slavery and afterwards. The expression was documented as being in wide usage in the 1920s, but may have originated much earlier.
“Shucking and jiving” was a tactic of both survival and resistance. A slave, for instance, could say eagerly, “Oh, yes, Master,” and have no real intention to obey. Or an African-American man could pretend to be working hard at a task he was ordered to do, but might put up this pretense only when under observation. Both would be instances of “doin’ the old shuck ‘n jive.”
Today, the expression has expanded somewhat from earlier usage, and is now sometimes used to mean “talking pure baloney,” “goofing off,” or “goofing around.” The original meaning of deceit often remains, however.
* 2 years ago
Source(s):
I teach some African-American Studies courses.
* Report It
Asker’s Rating:
5 out of 5
Asker’s Comment:
Great answer! Thanks!
________________________________________________________
Fascinating, actually. I haven’t ever heard anyone actually use the phrase in real life.
Fine distinctions.
No, doubletalk to hide the contradictions, which Aquinas saw clearly.
Just a note:
Extravagant language can be misunderstood; the more words iused, the greater the possibility of error. OTOH, If the writer wants to obfuscate a meaning, what better way than to bury it in wordiness?
Instead of taking a discussion point by point: throwing a glob of multiple points, interspersed with insulting references, claims of loving intent, whining about being attacked, and noble vows to take the high road—
That might constitute something worthy of the racist and disgusting appellation of a “shuck and jive.”
Pardon me, but use of that out-dated phrase is very telling, particularly when one uses it against Catholics, saying they do that. IMHO it reveals something very important about the way the writer views Catholics.
Did you perhaps conveniently forget Herod's attempt to kill Jesus "immediately after he was born" by slaughtering every male child born in that time frame, and the flight of Mary and Joseph to Egypt (upon being warned by Heaven). It sounds pretty darned historical to me.
You said: None of us here worships the Bible. We read it! Try it sometime.
I do. In fact the whole Bible with all it’s parts not the diminished Bible, changed to reflect a man-made exegesis. And I read it through the lens of Christ, the Catholic Church, so I don’t meander off into heresy.
The point is, protestants read the Bible and use protestant interpretations that they trust, made by other protestants. Not all of those learned interpretations agree; many disagree strongly. How do they know who to trust?
I just find it hard to believe they read it in the original languages, with full knowledge of cultural and religious meanings and connotations. It makes it hard to take those differing protestant interpretations seriously.
This is the Nestorian heresy.
No, the Nestorian heresy is saying that Christ was two persons.
Nestorianism claimed that Jesus was host to two separate persons, that of the son of god and that of a mortal man. It was as such a direct response to Apollinarianism.
http://www.roman-empire.net/religion/heresy.html
Christ had two natures but was one Person.
I already did. When God decided that it was time to send the Messiah to Israel, there may have been several candidates for mother, but God chose Mary at that time just before sending Gabriel to tell her -- not before that. Why is that not plausible??? Do you think that Mary was the only virgin in Israel descended from the line of David?
I have the same concern for those who insist on slandering the Catholic church. I don't understand how some people can think it is OK play God condemn those they don't understand. I really worry about their pride and arrrogance which we know our God loathes.
I know I'm not a perfect Catholic, but even if I were, my catholic teaching would not allow me to claim to be better, more knowledgable, and condemn others.
That is bad for the soul.
Matthew ; Chapter 7 1 1 2 "Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you. Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove that splinter from your eye,' while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite, 3 remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye.
Let's pray together that all Christians learn to be more loving and charitable with each other and do God's will.
That’s far more about you than I have any interest in.
Yes, indeed. In fact, it's the Prottys who are sticking up for Mary's memory. What would Mary, in all of her Biblical humility, think if she was aware of what has been done in and to her name? Would she have ever sought the offices and titles that are ascribed to her, and is there any evidence in the Bible that these offices and titles were so decreed by God? No, of course not. These are offices and titles wholly created by men after the fact for their own purposes. From all the evidence we have in the Bible about Mary, she would tell us to look to Christ instead of her. But you know all this... :)
So of course I agree both that the Trinity is not extra Biblical AND that it is WAY more apparent in Scripture than our Marian stuff. But in addition to the "theme question" of Why is Jesus not enough (and when did you stop beating YOUR wife? — who says He's not enough for us? That is your conjecture about the motivation for Marian devotion, but it is merely a conjecture, and I think it's a mistaken one) you mentioned all the, so to speak "time and effort" in the Marian stuff.
So what I was clumsily saying was we spent right much time and effort on Trinitarian doctrine back in the first Millennium. It was the time and effort I was addressing. If you're going to bring up peripheral arguments to make your point, surely it's legitimate for me to address them.
, only bringing up peripheral arguments to detract from the issue:
That would be mind-reading. As Old Reggie will tell you, I am a cry baby, so when somebody raises peripheral arguments and then accuses the person who addresses the issues he raised of intending to distract, I get all whiny. Why bring up all the time and effort if they are not important. And if they ARE important, why cavil when I address them (however clumsily)?
Little stuff:
No one’s salvation depends on Mary or any other earthly priest. (We don't think Mary is an earthly priest or even a heavenly priest — except in the sense that all the elect are "priests and kings" — except for those of the female persuasion who would presumably be queens.) And We agree with this statement.
He declared “It is finished!” (or “It is paid in full!” ...),/i>
If you ever inflict our NAB on yourself, you will understand why I've been toying with "Okay, that's a wrap" for τετελεσται.
Okay, now here's the part where I fail miserably. As you may recall, I think (and JP2 had the good sense to agree with me) that Col 1:24 casts important light on what "enough" means, or, to say it another way, on what we are saved TO.
We are saved into Christ. We share in his work, and we share in His sufferings. Between now and the end, we are called to share in the happiness of Christ on the cross.
Today we papists commemorate Charles Lwanga and the other martyrs (some of them Anglicans!) of Uganda. We consider them happy and blessed because they died for Christ and His Gospel.
Paul daringly suggests that there is something yet to be fulfilled in the sufferings of Christ. I would rephrase to say that the benefits pouring from the Cross and from His wounder side are precisely that we are ennobled so far beyond our imagining that we can share in his redemptive work.
Oh! New analogy: Christ and His work are like a powerful tug boat, and we are like small dinghies towed by Him, and going where He goes.
We are promised not only houses and families to replace those we renounce, but the accompaniment of persecutions. "Provided you suffer with him" says St. Paul. And out of His overflowing sufficiency — "enoughness" — we are swept into saving work.
And that overflowing sufficiency also relates to Marian stuff. Remember the watchword is "shaken down, pressed together, running over. As I have said, these phrases hit me in a big way when I was feeding my sheep and when, to minimize the number of buckets I used to carry feed for 200 sheep and lambs, I tread to get as much feed as I possibly could into each bucket.
Ask and you shall receive — as much as possible! And God's "as much as possible" is very much.
I think that some bring to the party the presupposition that singing the Salve Regina or praying a Rosary is laborious. Well, I guess it is at first. But I think our romantic and sexual urges may have led us to forget how laborious the first days (years) of dating were. Even a wedding take a lot of work. But we don't think (do we?) that when dating was less terrifying and overwhelming and once the wedding is over and we are struck far out from the coast into the deep sea of marriage ... we don't think either that the dating or the wedding preparations EARNED us the marriage, and most of us don't resent (well not too much) all the work of the early years of dating and the rushing around in a controlled panic before the wedding.
Similarly, I ENJOY my Rosary-praying. The "work" side of it is pretty much forgotten in the communion, not with our Lady, but with our Lord which I experience in the Rosary.
(And that's a little important: It's not a theory for me that Mary leads me to Jesus, it's an experience, a report.)
To recap, I am suggesting that "enough" is not a kind of fixed quantity but more like the water of John 4:14 which becomes an inner spring.
And out of the rich plenty of that supply, from the far more than sufficient graces of Christ come Marian devotion. It is not to make up a lack. It is more like a dressmaker discovering that she has far more material than she thought she had, so she adds ruffles and bows and a train and all the rest to a wedding dress which, as planned, was already sufficient for decency and even a kind of spare beauty.
Again, as I hope you know, I am not trying to persuade you. I am trying to report on the view from here.
No, but they took Jesus with them, her husband went with her, they didn’t flee into the desert, she didn’t sprout wings, and there was no flood which was swallowed up by the earth.
My point is that there is an entire narrative. In any narrative, there will be things that match some real-world event. Sometimes those real-world events are the basis for the imagery in the narrative. But you should not take a narrative and use it to assert new physical realities, simply because some parts of the narrative are similar to real-world events.
The original poster suggested that because the woman was Mary, she must be a Queen because she was wearing a crown.
To make that claim, you have to be able to show how the crown is a physical reality, and not just imagery, while allowing other parts of the story, even in the same sentence, to be simply imagery, and not meant as reality.
BTW, Herod was not waiting for Jesus at the moment of birth either. Which is why he killed all children under the age of 2.
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.