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.
“Well, I believe the Word of God. It was inspired by the Holy Spirit and it’s the truth. Period.”
“The Douay-Rheims-Challoner Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, both provided to us by God through the work of the Holy Spirit, in the name of Christ our Lord and Savior”
Thank you both. Now how do you know “the Word of God/The Douay-Rheims-Challoner Bible” (I’m assuming they both are the bible) and “the Catechism of the Catholic Church” are trustworthy sources for “ultimate truth”?
I saw in one of the threads that someone quoted your scriptures as saying something like “be ready to give an answer for the hope you have” and I took it to mean the ultimate truth you are relying on for salvation. So, since all of you seem to be convinced of the truth you believe it should not be too hard to explain the basis for it and how you determine its trustworthiness. If not, then maybe the elusiveness of the concept explains the heated emotions.
This is religion, “know” is a BIG word.
I have faith—I believe—that they are trustworthy sources for ‘ultimate truth.’
Sorry, so far I have seen nothing about you, except that you are a n00b.
On principle, I dislike most n00bs. And I never answer survey questions from someone who does not reveal his/her own bias.
This thread has a topic. Start one of your own. Just my suggestion.
Not at all. What I share is the understanding of the Bible guided by the Holy Spirit and the Catholic Church for 1970+ years.
Most of the participants here are good people but there are a few, very few, "hit an run" artists interested only in hate and disruption. In the old days we would have run them off. :)
God be with you.
I think the term heretic is over-used here. "In error" would be more precise.
Also, in sort of internal argumentative structures, I think the reductio ad absurdum works effectively to show something wrong without an explicit appeal to external axiomata and postulates.
Alamo-girl eschews the principle of non-contradiction, so reductios wouldn't work with her.
I do think there is a serious question about the nature and utility of reason, as is implied with someone's rejecting the principle of non-contradiction.
Then there's the whole problem of religious certainty. Paul says, "I know Him whom I have believed." And I say, "Oh yeah? And what exactly is THAT supposed to mean?"
But I don't do it too loudly because I think I know, experientially, what he means.
But when it comes down to identifying first principles, I think it'll be difficult and murky. Sola Scriptura SEEMS like it might work, but it is not notable for producing unity. And the indeterminate body of "infallible" Catholic "definitions" requires a sometimes apparently legalistic approach.
I think your question good, but I bet it won't be answered. Discussing it might be fun though.
Who’s his/her “boss”? Is he/she being paid to do this survey? Why doesn’t he/she start a new thread?
1. Very carefully worded. No absolutes at all. Lawyerly.
2. It's not Catholic Teaching. :)
>>But it’s not OFFICIAL! :) <<
Touche!
But on this one I’ll take his word for it until he says otherwise.
"We have had so many visitations,..."
This can be dangerous ground.
Are you going to link to St. Augustine saying “Sola Scriptura!” or admit he didn’t say it?
So? Drive on!
Pssst! Clueless here. What survey?
That didn’t strike you as a survey question?
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.