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.
May God grant you the ability to proclaim the Gospel in truth and love.
So over the top, you might need a parachute
The capital city of Italy is squirming?
Good thing the Catholic Church has no such problem.
Which is while I specifically used the phrase "ordinarily considered."
Some of those who toss around hateful statements like grass seed also say that they are doing it out of love.
Islamofascists often go out of their way to affirm that they believe Jews to be "people of the Book" and to say that they don't hate the Jews -- yet they are determined to destroy Israel.
I never tried to tell the mod how to do their job. I asked for clarification.
CHAPTER XXV
Of the Church
VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ.[13] Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.[14]
Hatred, pure and simple.
What's a "sado-evangelist?"
Is this some crude comment the Religion Moderator should be pinged to?
Were you baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?
If so, you have entered the Church.
Like you, I am partial to the original.
Thanking God for keeping you ignorant?
I don't think it is God who is doing that.
However, my baptism did not save me. Christ on the cross saved me. His justification saved me. His obedience saved me. His righteousness saved me.
OF course.
But the question was whether "co" denote a junior position or rank or must it designate equality? You were arguing that it denotes equality.
I adduced co-pilot as one of many examples to show how the prefix can denote a junior position. All I needed to show to deal with our contention was that "co" denoted something other than "equality". Somebody else brought up several other examples. You made a linguistic or lexical contention. your contention was addressed and shown to be incorrect. Our mission was to address the contention you made. I believe we did so, at least adequately.
Is it a general tenet of Protestant faith or practice that when an argument is lost one must pretend that it wasn't or change the subject?
Thank God I know Christ alone.
"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." -- 1 Peter 2:24
Wake up and rejoice.
Of course not, that might be counterproductive; however, the implication is ALWAYS present. And trust me, I am well aware of how "careful" these writers are to ONLY use those verses that are easiest to distort.
No church on earth is perfect and no one has everything right 100% of the time or else they would be God.
Strange, I thought Calvinists believed that the Church IS the Body of Christ.
Rome squirms because when that Gospel is preached Rome is shown to be in error time after time.
By "Rome" I presume you mean the Catholic Church. Can you point to one of these occasions where the Church has "squirmed" and recanted?
Has the Catholic Church, like so many Protestant denominations, revised or abandoned Biblical prohibitions against the ordination of women, homosexuality and abortion?
As for the rest of what you wrote, it as been explained to you more than enough times, it would be an exercise in futility for me to go through it again. But let me point this out to you, because ANYBODY can start their own Protestant denomination at ANY TIME and for ANY REASON, ANYTHING published by ANY Protestant can be considered "Protestant literature," to that end I find it implausible that nothing has been written that is far more inflammatory than the misunderstood declarations of the Council of Trent.
Good one!
By what authority or on what basis do you say this?
What does it mean? It seems to fly in the face of common sense and experience.
The above is my way of saying, "Huh? I don't give me some help, please."
I skip the psychobabble posts but the gist is something that you and I are sick sick puppies. Woof
You are thanking God for keeping you ignorant. That’s really very sad.
I posted from the version you linked. I can certainly understand why one would leave out that bit.
You called the doctrine you quoted from the Catechism “exclusive.” I merely pointed out that it does not exclude you.
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.