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.
Who said that (I mean besides you)?
As best I can tell, the first person to be sufficiently anti-Catholic was Spurgeon.
But-but it’s on the internet?!?!?
or couldda been people fleeing the Inquisition
Well put.
However, as the likely target of that broadside of MD’s,
I’ll state the realities within me from my perspective.
1. I always post as a component of an interaction, preferably a dialogue of some substance AND some emotional intensity. I’m not real fond of 95% asleep shallow exchanges, . . . at least I’m not—MOST of the time.
2. I have no goal of upsetting or driving nuts per se. I suppose it depends on one’s definitions.
3. I do frequently have as a 2nd or 3rd or some such goal . . . to say things in a way that provokes though—hopefully deeper than usual thought—that usually means that one needs to hook some emotional connection with the content in order to trigger deeper and longer than usual thought. I’m fairly brazenly given to persistently writing with that in mind. Actually, it’s probably virtually an automatic habit, now.
4. I do frequently post similarly because emotional intensity with the content tends to make a comment more memorable—afford, in a sense, an ‘easier’ time for Holy Spirit to make fruit frm the comment because there’s a longer half-life to it.
5. There is a part of me at times . . . that I confess does enjoy responding to an emotionally intense or outrageous RC comment/statement in a way that is startling, novel, unexpected . . . maybe even tweaky intellectually. That’s much more fun than saying something that would most likely foster the wonderful fruit of a near dead yawn. If I’m going to bother commenting, I’d rather not comment in a way that puts folks deeper into a comotose state.
LOL.
Complete non-sequitur.
Give us a link to the Vatican that has “co-redeemer” in it.
No need to divert, give us the link.
But then again, I suppose you've never heard of a concordance.
But the term is co-Redemptrix, remember?
GUESS WHAT!
I don’t know of a single Protty hereon who ever signed any document agreeing that only the RC’s could define, declare, prescribe, sanction, legislate . . .
1. OBJECTIVE TRUTH
2. HISTORICAL TRUTH
3. BIBLICAL TRUTH
4. LOGICAL TRUTH
5. INTERPERSONAL TRUTH
6. MATHEMATICAL TRUTH (a few = 66! LOL)
7. CALENDAR TRUTH
Wailing, whining, throwing dust in the air, etc. etc. etc.
about supposed false statements has no bearing, no import, no utility, no merit, no sense, no validity
for the well read, research skilled, logical, Spirit-led Protty.
I suppose it does serve some purpose . . . it informs us that the RC concerned is still alive and kicking . . . very kicking.
“Bible dipping”?
It’s more wah, they hate me, it’s a constant refrain. It’s incredible really. I wonder how old they really are.
==
INDEED! LOL.
I don’t know if you come from that part of the country . . .
But my mother would likely say something like —give the poor baby a sugar t_t—i.e. a teaspoon of sugar in a corner of a hankey secured with a string or rubber band.
GUESS WHAT!
I rarely read gibberish posts. This time I made a two-word exception.
We had a term for it on the school yard, elementary school, but if i say it, well... you know
Let’s let everyone decide if any of these sound alright:
“Mary, our subordinate Redemptrix.”
“Mary, our subsidiary Redemptrix.”
“Mary, our assistant Redemptrix.”
“Mary, our joint-Redemptrix.”
I suspect that caused some existential squirmming in some seats. Seems like hereon, sometimes, if some RC’s get any hint of an idea that even a small cloud is going to shade the Mary caricature’s halo for 2 seconds, they have to call out for a mass demonstration to defend Mary’s “honor.”
It would be more funny if it weren’t so chronic and so serious.
If Mary knows anything of such goings on, she must be quite dismayed.
I gather you never read the “Anne” books.
>>But the term is co-Redemptrix, remember?<<
Okay, so where is co-redeemer or co-Redemptrix in any Vatican document?
There are plenty of “Vatican documents” that do not and cannot establish doctrine.
The liquid joint juice at Sam’s has helped mine a lot. No pain at all. Even less cracking sounds.
Again, a Catholic needs to explain to us whence it cometh, because it is illogical.
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.