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.
As far as I'm concerned this is an argument in favor of sacred tradition to compliment the Bible. There are so many ambiguities in a compilation which we only have a tradition to tell us is meant to be the supreme book of the Church. It does not show signs of being intended as a comprehensive and exhaustive source as the debates over Sola Scriptura show, at least to my satisfaction.
We stipulate that it is inspired but what we have is something oracularly vague. The "Scripture explains Scripture" school does not explain why Scripture excerpt A should somehow outrank Scripture excerpt B so that we can say man is justified by faith alone because all this over here outranks that over there.
When the bluster is used up, we seem to have found no indisputable arguments but a lot of angry arguers.
As you ourself point out, though I don't agree with the motives you assign to it, there is lots of wiggle room with sacred tradition. Without it, there is the strange history of the different groupings in the US, from the City on a Hill to the Quakers and Baptists and from there on out into the denominational jungle.
It almost seems as though disagreeing with the Catholics serves as a uniting bond in a collection of groups which, without the unifying force of a common enemy, would fall to fighting among themselves.
What an improbable performance! What an unreliable oracle, if its reliability is to be deduced from those who claim to derive their teaching from it and from it alone.
Not totally.
Blood siblings are not half-siblings nor step siblings.
Some folks think the Catechism is too long. I guess reading it makes their mouths too tired.
Hey Quix-draw, I see you are back from sabbatical (or whatever they are calling it on FR these days). I was beginning to think you were a victim of alien kidnapping or something. The forum has been a bit “quiet” without you...ok, that’s not exactly true. In any event, welcome back.
***************
LOL!
"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?"
You do know what spam is don’t you?
That right there is a home run. In fact, a compendium like that is probably going to make the anti-Catholic fetishists squeal.
****************
Your posts?
Thanks for those links in your post....I can see that I have a lot of hopefully worthwhile, uplifting and informative reading to get to....
Satan and all kinds of critters can insult me 24/7 . . . sometimes outrageously.
Yet . . .
IF
I don’t receive it . . .
or
IF I don’t receive it as an insult
WHETER INTENDED as an INSULT, or not . . .
it kind of dies on the vine in terms of any import to me or to what I love.
Well put, imho.
The Roman church; the edifice and political power mongering structure in Rome and with the leader claiming to be leader of all Christendom, was founded after the Pagan Council at Nicea
You said: The Roman church; the edifice and political power mongering structure in Rome and with the leader claiming to be leader of all Christendom, was founded after the Pagan Council at Nicea.
Repeating a lie does not make it true. And that, good sir, is a complete and utter fabrication.
Do Protestants have the Letters of the Ephesians in their bibles? They were written about 58 AD. I find these letters absolutly beautifull and inspired by the Holy Spirit. In my opinion they had a very stong influence on our Catholic faith and tell a lot about Christian history.
God alone is omniscient; neither Mary, nor any of the other saints in Heaven are—and I challenge you to show me where in holy Scripture citizenship in heaven for humans implies gaining God’s omniscience or omnipresence.
= =
INDEED.
As to insults . . . they seem to be part of the RC rituals for a significant chunk of the RC’s. Kind of goes with the mentality of construing RELIGIOUS REALITY such that they are convinced that only they have the truly truest true TRUTH.
It’s hard to respond to nonsense except with more nonsense.
HALLELUJAH!
SOMEONE gets it!
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.