Whatcha talking about? See granny below.
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.
You didn’t take your Catholic faith serously but you are experienced enough to trash the beliefs of millions of others. Pathetic.
If you were correct, then the married woman with the dead husband would not be free. But this would contract other places which clearly state that widows are free to marry again (because again, the husband is dead).
Sorry, the believers in Christ who are dead cannot hear you now and are awaiting the Resurrection of the dead, just as I said.
Only God, The Father, The Son, and the Holy Ghost have the power to hear prayers. No one else does.
But your description ignores the actual words of Jesus to his mother. They are not easy words, and it’s a lot easier to tell the story if you ignore what Jesus said to her.
Again, if you want to take the story to a deeper meaning than it appears to have, the servants are not like us, because the servants did not know Jesus, nor would they be “believers” in his power. So Mary would be the person who brought them to a knowlege of Jesus. But she did so as a human on earth, and her words was “do whatever he tells you”, not “I’ll ask Jesus, and I’ll tell you what to do”.
And after her human act of telling them about Jesus, she left them to communicate directly with him. Although as I say this isn’t a story of redemption, or even of a loving Father who answers the prayers of his children, it’s about Jesus manifesting his power to signify his authority and Godhood.
So we don’t know if they said anything to Jesus. We know that they came to Jesus, Jesus gave them a command, they followed the command, and Jesus performed a miracle.
There is nothing in that story to suggest that we, who already know Jesus, should have to be brought to him by Mary, or told to listen to what he tells us.
Further, there is no scriptural evidence that any of his disciples went to Mary to get access to Jesus, or that any other people who were already following Jesus around, or heard of him, ever went to Mary first to get an introduction.
Nor is there any indication in the Acts of the Apostles that Mary ever led a single other person to her Son, for any purpose.
In fact, as you point out, the story of Cana doesn’t even tell us if anybody went to Mary to ask for help or not. It could well be she noticed the wine was out, and went to Jesus on her own accord, rather than in response to supplication by others.
So I still fail to see how, even looking for a deep, hidden meaning in what appears to be a rather understandable story (with only the rebuke to Mary being hard to understand), how you could conclude that the story indicates we, who know Jesus, as believers, should ever ask Mary to go to Jesus for us.
So wat justification do you use to gloss that Mary says Jesus “won’t listen” to her?
She asked Him to do something. He grumbled. But He did it, not because He had to, but because His mother asked.
If that's where the LORD tells you to go then that's where you need to go. Who knows maybe you can teach them The Gospel.
***Catholicism has a lot of places to go for help. :)***
And we poor Christians have only Christ...
To me, idolatry is far more insidious than merely bowing down to a thing made of wood, metal or stone. It is letting anything at all take the top priority in our hearts.
There is only one Great Commandment:
Love God. Believe Him. Trust Him.
I don't recall, but were you one of those on the "Are Catholics Christian" thread who said that Catholics aren't?
It seems you missed the entire point of phenomenological language, and also the discussion about Rev 6:9-10. How does someone who believes in "soul sleep" reconcile Rev 6:9-10 with such a belief? Are you going to just ignore Rev 6:9-10? Seems many critics of the Church choose to ignore Scriptures that are inconvenient for their own personal interpretation.
And in the New Testament, the Apostle Paul says that of a married woman, if the man is dead she is freed from the law as a wife.
If you were correct, then the married woman with the dead husband would not be free. But this would contract other places which clearly state that widows are free to marry again (because again, the husband is dead).
Well, Catholics believe that once a spouse dies, then the survivor is free to marry again too. Doesn't that tell you something? That should make you ask, "Why do Catholics believe that, yet still reject soul sleep?"
The answer is because once a spouse is separated physically from his/her significant other through death, then they are free to marry. But this physical separation (death) doesn't necessarily mean the spouse who died is "asleep". Again, the point of phenomenological language is relevant here. They *appear* to be asleep, in a physical sense, but aren't really, as dead people aren't really *asleep*, unless you actually believe every time a person dies, their body is just asleep.
The reasons Catholics can get married after death is because just as you pointed out: Christian tradition is reflected through the passages you referred to. It was never thought that simply because a spouse was in Heaven, that meant the surviving spouse on Earth was still "bound" to his/her beloved departed. This issue is really a red-herring, as it deflects away from the clear example in Revelation where souls CAN see what's going on on Earth and CAN speak to God, therefore are not "asleep" in any sense.
Sorry, the believers in Christ who are dead cannot hear you now and are awaiting the Resurrection of the dead, just as I said.
Only God, The Father, The Son, and the Holy Ghost have the power to hear prayers. No one else does.
Okie dokie, if you *say* so, I guess it's true!
That is very well said, and in fact what Catholics have been saying all along on this issue.
Simply honoring someone is not replacing God or putting them "above God". It just isn't. It's common sense to say that, or else God Himself committed blasphemy against Himself when he commanded that we are to "honor our father and mother".
I'm not saying that command is a "slam dunk" in proving it's ok to show honor to Mary or the Saints (so please don't go down that rabbit trail if you are so inclined after reading what I wrote above). I'm saying that in that Command, clearly, God is giving us permission to show honor to someone else other than Him. Ergo, if it's ok to show honor to our fathers and mothers, why is it bad to show honor to someone who is not our biological father and mother?
I don't know how else to say it, other than to again point to Rev 3:9 for an example of men "worshipping" (paying HONOR to) other men, or otherwise to anticipate your response to simply be "ok, it's ok to give honor to people, but NOT to put them above God", which I hope you would NOT say, for the sake of avoiding redundancy.
Nope.
See my FR web page for my long standing declaration on such.
I was under the impression that Catholics believe what is written in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Where I live TOTEMS are used exactly as "icons" are used in places where icons are reverenced.. The totems stand for other things as reminders.. The arguments are the same to support them.. Weak arguments.. Little wonder God warned against them..
In some places Mary is used as an TOTEM in other places Mary is lifted past a totem almost to Deity.. What is not easily discerned is how this is explained away thru semantics.. A type of spiritual blindness I suspect..
I suspose thats what what we are "here" for.... to determine what we will "fall for".. I wouldnt want to stand before God and say "Look GOd, I wasn't worshipping MARY what I doing was "such and such".. As if God can be fooled by a gambit.. Playing with idols is playing "WITH FIRE"..
"WE" can even idolize EACH OTHER.. children, dog, cat, food, drink, drugs, church, appearance, even our opinion(s).. God save us..
IF that made sense. While God is outside of time, Jesus was a man as well as God, and existed within time and on this planet. His sacrifice was once for all, and cannot happen again in time, even with handwaving to say it is “out of time”.
Further, when Jesus institute the Sacrament of the Eucharist, he did not say to do this in Sacrifice, but in Remembrance.
But this will get us into the discussion of whether the Host is a Host, and transubstantiation, which was well-discussed last week.
His mother asked Him nothing. She gave Him information, and told others to follow Him.
I have always appreciated the story, because it reminds me of how I would try to ignore my mother, but then I would go ahead and take care of whatever it was she informed me of. However, I don’t think that was the purpose of the scripture, or that Jesus was impetuous in telling his mother to buzz off but then thought better of it.
I don’t believe official church doctrine requires worship of Mary, but it is hard not to find fault with titles such as “Scott Hahn’s book “Hail, Holy Queen””.
I realise that “Hail, Holy Queen”, is the author’s title, not a missive from the Church.
Whatcha talking about? See granny below.
I try to be respectful, but am not always successful.
I have only recently been coming into the Religion forums, as an experiment more than anything. I feel very uncomfortable doing this in a political site, because I love my Catholic partners in the conservative movement, and don’t want to emphasize what divides us rather than the political philosophies we share.
I feel the same way about Mormons, and frankly about some Muslims although that’s not a popular opinion around here. I’m not very respectful of the Muslim faith though, seeing little truth in it.
I see much truth in Catholic teachings, so the disagreements are not as problematic.
You mean like offering prayers to Mary? I think that we have officially come full circle. ;-)
I'm Presbyterian but not a Presbyterian who holds that all Catholics are non-Christians. I find several of the practices of the Catholic Church to be troubling and unscriptural but despite that I think that the Holy Spirit is still at work in the Catholic Church.
This conversation is troubling to me. I'm seeing a lot of distinctions without any differences. It's not idolatry, it's reverence. It's not prayer, it's a request. It's not worship, it's communication. The old saying about a duck seems to apply here. Reflect on what has been said here and maybe you can see why Protestants are very concerned by these subtleties.
I think I see your perspective, I just don’t agree with it. I am already on somewhat shaky ground believing a man’s spirit is in heaven already, but I see no evidence in Scripture that I can communicate with these spirits, that they can hear or see what is happening here on earth, or that I should attempt to use them as intermediaries.
I realise that we have a foundational difference in that I am limiting myself to scripture while you have the Church traditions and teachings. But it seems to me that something as basic and important as enlisting the souls of those who have passed on to work on our behalf would have merited at least a passing mention by Jesus when teaching us to pray, or by Paul in instructing the early Church.
If I were to accept the concept of the Church adding to our knowlege of the faith, it would be as legislatures flesh out the constitution — the basic tenets would be in Scripture, and the Church would add to that specific guidance, guidelines, acts, and punishments.
I do in fact believe that the Church, that those whom God has appointed as Pastors and teachers, do have the task of amplifying the basic message of scripture.
But I cannot believe that on basic doctrinal issues, God would have been silent in his Word, and Jesus would have been silent in his direction, but instead counted on post-biblical revelation by the Church.
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.