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.
Second, this post suggests you have been lurking for some time. Correct?
Do you "revere" your hero's to the extent that a new term, let's call it "hyper reverence" must be developed to explain the depth of your reverence?
None of the "revered" persons you have mentioned have Shrines built to honor them, have appeared in visions and have given "secrets" to save the world, and are the recipients of "worship" from some. (Though it is not 'official' teaching it cannot be denied there is such a thing as Mary Worship).
You are comparing apples and oranges in comparing the Hyper-Dulia "reverance" shown to Mary and your "mortal" hero's.
Finally, I think it important that you recognize there is more than one school of thought concerning the "veneration" shown to Mary.
In the prior thread I note that you were offered 100% Catholic and Catholic Apologetic material. You will probably find the same material offered by your Catholic "friends".
Now this is only a personal observation, but I am of the opinion you are not interested in the "other side". If that is so you should stay strictly in the Catholic Apologetic camp to avoide confusion.
If you are open minded say so. I and others would be willing to provide material which shows the "other" story.
Finally, you appear to be shocked by the differing opinions and bickering generated by your first thread. If you want only Catholic supporting replies you should seriously consider closing the thread.
Not me, no. I don't think you're mocking me.
The mockery seems to me to be directed at the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Trust me, I'm all for ecumenism and Christian unity if and how it could ever be achieved. But while I recognize some of the arguments of the church as being historical and valid, there are other doctrines or arguments the church makes that seem based only on traditions of dubious origin.
Perhaps I cross the line and end up being too harsh, maybe it is even mocking in tone if not intent, but it's only because I seek the truth about Christ, God and the Church. It's what caused me to investigate Catholicism and consider it in the first place.
Asking anyone to speculate about Heaven, and the abilities or lack of them of souls therein, comparing those abilities in any way to the afterlife in Glory, is not very convincing.
We cannot know. “Eye hath not seen” and no doubt it will be as different from this life, as life in the womb is to a man of 40. Our limited understanding is not adequate, so why would the questions even arise? For all we know, Heaven is right next to us and everyone there sees everything.
Entreating saints in heaven is engaging with the eternal. We guess (but cannot know) that heavenly citizens have an interest in this, our mortal world, and in some mystery, engage in interactions with us and certainly with Christ.
To speak to the saints, to ask their intercession, says that we believe (though NO ONE can know until they are there) that that they are not disembodied cherubs nestling in clouds, but real, living, individual and capable of action.
You may believe something different. Not a problem. Each of us faces judgement separately, and your beliefs or lack of them can have no impact on the sacred moment of another, or another upon yours.
The failing is not with the Catholic Church, but those who fail to or refuse to understand.
I'm all for ecumenism and Christian unity if and how it could ever be achieved.
I'm not. Ecumenism these days has come to mean the Catholic Church must jettison all the Godly teachings and traditions that protestants choose to mock or attack or heap with ridicule and scorn.
There is something plainly demonic in the drive to dumb down Catholicism. Folks who want their Christianity watered-down beyond recognition should go elsewhere...or rent a store front and start their own splinter sect.
I'd rather not do something which is of dubious origin, than do it and hope it might be true. That's why I'm still a Lutheran, I guess.
One protestant demands logical explanations, another insists we abandon logic and common sense and accept (his own personal interpretation of) Truth.
I’ll stay with the 1900+ years of scholarship, Holy Inspiration and Tradition, thank you very much.
Yes, the Church's teachings seem as silly, to some, as Christianity itself does to an atheist. Born of a virgin? Rose from the dead? Nothing but lame fables to unbelievers, and there is no defense with logic, because God is much much bigger than logic.
Avoiding something of dubious origin by sticking with the non-scriptural sola scriptura and sola fide?
Wow. Sometimes all I can say is "wow."
I fell in love with and married a Lutheran, when I was an unbeliever. :D
We both ended up Catholic.
So......
Have a great day!
I don't believe I have seen any Protestants, so-called or otherwise who attack those who show reverence to Mary. Perhaps you can point them out and I will join you in criticizing them.
Well, the protestants think that they have us coming and going. All they really possess is a bunch of arguments against Catholicism. Pretty empty basket, when it comes to toting around spiritual food to others.....
ROFL!!!
Exactly!
;OD
The Catholic answer is "no."
Again, that's not mockery, it's incredulity. Look, I understand one side of your argument. I recognize that the Church is on shaky ground here - if they reject any of their tradition, then they open themselves up to all traditions being questioned and rejected by anyone at any time. It becomes chaos. Point taken. I respect that fear, and it's a real one for the Church.
The flip side is that there needs to be some recognition within the church, somehow, by someone, in some way, means or form - that the church is not always right, and has not always been right (if you argue that it is or has been, then you're opening up a big can of worms, starting with the name "Borgia" and proceeding through things like "Inquistion", etc). So what is the process for the church to open itself to honest question and query? What is the process of the church to examine itself and its teachings and admit error if they are incorrect either theologically, historically, etc? Is there such a process?
I will be the first to admit that I don't see any answer, and it makes everything very shaky if the church changes its tradition or is forced to re-examine anything. Luther was excommunicated because the church simply refused to hear his arguments. Yet no one with a rational intellect can deny that most of Luther's arguments were true and valid. His complaints against the church were valid. The church's only answer would have been to have burned him at the stake if Luther hadn't been protected. That doesn't speak well for the church's defense of its doctrine, at least historically.
I don't really know what the purpose was of the Vatican councils, like Vatican II, but I thought it was to "modernize" the church and re-examine its teachings in light of such. Does the church have any ability to be questioned or process to examine its doctrines and modify or change them? I don't know.
But the dilemma I'm having is just a single example of the issues that most Protestants wrestle with when it comes to the Catholic Church. On the one hand it seems good to have a single, titular "head" of the church who speaks for us, to have solid, authoritative, doctrine protected by tradition, etc. On the other hand, not allowing for disagreement and matters of conscience on pain of hell fire for questioning or disagreeing...simply denies intellectual honesty, conscience and reason on the part of the believer. That is not right.
LOL
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.