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’ll have to politely disagree....
I’m sure it will all get sorted out in heaven, hope to eventually see ya’ there.....not too soon of course....
I guess I wonder what you believe concerning Angels. Do you believe we can communicate with them? That is why I was pointing towards the Psalmist. The faithful Angels remained in Heaven after Satan's rebellion - it was these Angels that David was addressing. I see the "denizens" of Heaven all having the same vantagepoint over us - whether they are Saints or Angels, or any other Creation He has made.
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.
Taking these in stride - first, the gates of Heaven were closed prior to Jesus' death. That is why the righteous dead were awaiting Him. Thus, there wasn't really anyone to pray to in Heaven when He was conducting His ministry. (I'm leaving Elijah out of this)
Further, the reason we pray to Saints is to ask them to help us bring our petitions to God. Now, Jesus is the only way we have to God, but He is God Himself. Thus, the Saints in Heaven bring our petitions to Jesus. The petition has many different routes TO God (the prayers of many), but they all go THROUGH Jesus. Even if there were Saints in Heaven, why would Jesus ask them something only to have them return it to him?
Lastly, I think Paul does mention it - so much of his letters are talking about how Christ conquered Death, and that those who fall asleep in Him are granted Eternal Life. And James 5:16 demonstrates the power of the righteous man's prayer - who is more righteous than those who are alive in Christ? I realize you may not see it, and I'd quote Tobit to show the ability of those in Heaven to bring our petitions to God, but I'm not sure you recognize it as canonical.
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.
I appreciate your recognition that organization is necessary to expounding proper teachings - so many people seem to fight even that basic principle. But, I have a few comments on this statement. First, like I've tried to show, the Bible isn't silent on such issues - it may not be explicit, but it is there. Second, you and I define "His Word" in two different ways as you pointed out - you believe His Word is the Bible, while I believe His Oral and Written Words have the same authority. Again, all the Ancient Churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental, and Assyrian) venerate Saints - it is a new development not to. Third, the Church teaches public revelation ended with the Apostles. For revelation, His Word is all we're getting til the end in regards. Again, it is all how you define "His Word."
Why not? You'll have to enlighten us here. The woman on earth is the same person as the woman in heaven; she was his mother on earth, she remains his mother in heaven. Or if your mother is dead, do you think she is indifferent to what happens to you?
Why?? Christ is the continuation and fulfillment of God's promise to KING David that "his line would reign forever". Mary is the Mother of Christ. In eastern kingdoms (including Judea), the reigning queen was NOT the King's wife, but the King's MOTHER. So, yes, Mary "is" Queen. So Hahn is correct, both historically and biblically.
And Hahn covers all this in his book, which, since you appear not to know the above, I assume you have not actually read, but are criticizing anyway.
Matthew Chapter 12 Jesus' Mother and Brothers 46While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."[c] 48He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" 49Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. 50For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."
******************
I'm a cradle Catholic, but I think I can understand your perspective. My mother was a Protestant who converted to Catholicism. I am so glad that she did, and have always respected her decision. Whatever you decide, I offer you that same respect.
30
Sacrae Scripturae lectio
§ 1.59 Plenaria indulgentia conceditur christifideli qui Sacram Scripturam, iuxta textum a competenti auctoritate adprobatum, cum veneratione divino eloquio debita et ad modum lectionis spiritalis, per dimidiam saltem horam legerit; si per minus tempus id egerit indulgentia erit partialis.
§ 2. Quod si rationabili de causa quis legere non valeat, indulgentia, plenaria vel partialis prout supra, conceditur, si textus ipse Sacrae Scripturae, vel alio legente vel ope instrumentorum, quae « video » vel « audio » vocantur, percipitur.
From the Enchiridion indulgentiarum, 4th Edition, published by the Apostolic Penitentiary.
The short version is that you gain an indulgence by reading Sacred Scripture. Why in the world would there be an indulgence for reading Scripture if they didn't want you to do so???
No offense...just makes no sense to me.
No, it is not. My prayer to her, as with other saints, includes an acknowledgment of her elevated status. For instance, part of one of our prayers says, “Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.”
This may be a dumb analogy, but, if I were to meet someone to whom I should show a great deal of deference, say the queen of England, there are certain protocols that are observed in the way I address her. I certainly would not just walk up to her and say, “Hi! How ya’ doin’?” With Mary, because she is so special to our Blessed Lord and because she is the queen of heaven, we speak to her in ways that show deference, but we do not worship her as a co-redeemer or some such.
I hope this helps. And I realize that it is difficult to understand our Marian devotion if it is not part of your faith tradition.
God be with you.
Neither is germane to the discussion here. Who is Mary except someone who must certainly did the will of the Father?
**No. Big difference between respecting/revering and worshiping. At least, that’s how I view it. **
And you are correct.
I disagree that Mary deserves, or should be assigned, the title of “Queen”.
But that is because I believe you put too much emphasis on Mary as the Mother of the King.
Jesus as Man was not King. It was Jesus as God that is King (I bet I’m going to get into trouble for making that distinction, and I’m not trying to make too much emphasis on it).
Jesus said “my Kingdom is not of this world”.
Mary was chosen by God to be the Mother of Jesus, but there is no indication he was chosen to be the Queen of anything.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
I don’t have the time to read through all the responses here, but you are correct that the Catholic Church has never advocated worshipping Mary. Reverence and worship are two quite distinct things.
Moreover, I have never heard of any Catholics, however ignorant, worshipping Mary.
God gave Mary a significant role in the redemption, because He did not force Himself on her: rather, He sent an angel in the Annunciation, and Mary freely said “Yes.” But there can only be one Redeemer in the strict sense of the word; the important role Mary played and continues to play is a gift of God and of her Son in particular.
Catholic commentary on the Bible sees the Wedding Feast at Cana to be significant in this regard. Jesus said the time for him to perform miracles was not yet come, because he had not yet entered into his public life. But when His mother asked him to change the water to wine, he promptly agreed—because He chose to, and because He loved His mother.
And what did Mary say? “Do whatever he tells you.” She wants no authority of her own, but as numerous commentators have pointed out, immediately points all petitioners back to her Son.
In the commonest prayer to the Virgin, the Hail Mary, the whole first half is taken directly from the Bible. And the direction is, again, to “the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.”
As I said in the earlier thread, I was born and bred an Episcopalian, but I have never found any trouble with praying to Mary or the saints, because I understand that God has chosen to give them the privilege of participating with Him in the work of salvation. There is no salvation except through Jesus, they have no inherent power of their own; but He shares His power: through the Sacraments, through the Church, and through His saints and others of good will.
There is something peculiarly individualistic and passive in the Protestant idea that God would refuse to share His power or any role in salvation with others. Those we love, those we consider friends, we do not just want to passively receive what we reward them; we also want to see them living productive lives and doing good things. Surely God would want this even more.
The three traditional offices assigned to Jesus by the early Church Fathers are: prophet, priest, and king.
He is prophet because He speaks God’s Word and Truth; indeed, He says that He is the Truth, and He is also traditionally called the Logos or Word (see the opening verse of John).
He is priest because He plays the essential role of any priest: mediating between God and man.
He is King, because God has given him “all power in heaven and on earth.”
This is simply not true, Charles. You may not acknowledge the significance of Church authority, or scripture passages such as the wedding feast at Cana, and the woman of Revelation 12...but these things are FAR from "no indication."
You have to be kidding. Do you really believe this? Do you really believe that God wants us to pray to Mary to intercede on our behalf? God clearly tells us to come directly to Him:
Hebrews 4:16 "Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need."
Do you actually believe that God is incapable of hearing our prayers without the assistance of Mary? Do you think that the Creator God of the universe needs any help in hearing our prayers?
I fear that your God is too small, if you truly believe these things. Or have you forgotten that God is omniscient?
We really believe that according to the bible, God will alter His divine plan at her request.
Chapter and verse?
John 2:4
You have to be kidding. Tell me you are not serious. That verse has nothing to do with praying to Mary. That is an earthly event, involving Jesus and His mother at an earthly event. Translating that event into justification for believing in praying through Mary is absurd...and a real stretch. In fact there is a word for that kind of interpretation: eisegesis.
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.