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.
When someone comes here with a desire to exchange ideas freely and openly, fine. When someone comes here with a survey question, no bona fides, no personal information, no answers to questions, references some mysterious “boss” s/he refuses to identify, then it’s time to start wondering what is going on.
Bump - interesting discussion
I know you don’t have to register to lurk but I think our NOOb has been around for a while and probably with another name.
Oh yeah.
BTW I have attached a Catholic Encyclopedia article on Augustine. Please note Chapter 3 which concerns Augustine's position on the authority of Scripture. This would later be called "Sola Scriptura" and could cause a person to meet a painful death by slow cooking.
I’m about to put the kiddies down and will read it tomorrow!
Not only, but it goes all the way back to Jesus arguing wih the “magi-sterium” of the day, when He responded to them with “It is written”.
Another on Augustine. This time from a choke choke non-Catholic source.
St. Augustine, bishop of Hippo, who flourished from 387, the time of his conversion, till his death in 430. We select the following pertinent remarks of the bishop of Hippo : — " In those things which are clearly laid down in Scripture, all those things are found which pertain to faith and morals."} And again : " Whatsoever ye hear from thence ( the Scriptures) let that be well received by you : whatsoever is without them refuse, lest ye wander in a cloud."J And in another place : " All those things which in times past our ancestors have mentioned to be done toward mankind and have delivered unto us : all those things also which we see and deliver to our posterity, so far as they pertain to the seeking and maintaining true religion, the Holy Scripture hath not passed in silence.")] " Whatever our Saviour would have us read of his actions or sayings he commanded his apostles and disciples, as his hands, to write."§ And in another place, where he mentions that saying of Cyprian : " Hence," says he, " it is in vain for them to object custom, who are overcome by reason, as though custom were greater than truth ; or as though that were not to be followed in spiritual things which is revealed by the Holy Ghost." " This," saith Augustine,^ " is * " Ut h»c qua scripta sunt non ncgarnus ; ita ca quae non sunt Scripta renuimus. Natum Deum esse Virginia, credtrnus, quia legimus ; Mariam nupsisso post partum, non credimus, quia non legimus." — Hieron. Advers. Helmd. t " In iis qua; apcrte in Scripturi posita sunt, inveniuntur ilia omnia qua; continent tidem morcsquc vivendi." — Aug. de Doctrina Christ., lib. ii, c. 9. I " Quicquid indo audicritis hoc vobia bene sapiat : quicquid extra cst rcapuite, nc <> rrctis in nebuli." — Idem, in lib. de Pastor., o. 11. II " Oinnia quae prcterritis temporibas ergo humanum genus majores nostri gesta essc mcminerunt, nobisque tradiderunt ; omnia etiam quae nos videmus, et postcris tradimu
Google Books - Augustine Et Al
This surely is for a later read.
Good night. God Bless
“Who is your “boss” that you referenced in your first post? Who are you? What is your bias?”
What difference does it make who my boss is? She/he was someone who was active on the Free Republic in the past and warned me about some of these discussions. I have no “bias” except for what I have explained and this is not a “survey” but just a way of trying to figure out what is the basis for these strongly held beliefs.
“Right up until I read #3660.”
I understand, and thank you.
“What, no answers?”
It looks like since this is my first day here my posts are delayed while being scrutinized. Sorry for any inconvenience.
Not good enough.
I hope you don’t mind, but I am responding in my usual font size because I have a lot to say and with the larger font, it would look like I am screaming.
The differences between personal epistemologies accounts for much of the irreconcilable differences between people. And I suspect enat and I have very different epistemologies.
The following is a list of the types of knowledge I receive by priority to me:
2. Theological knowledge, indirect revelation: I believe in a revelation experienced by another; which is to say that Scripture is authenticated and enlivened in me by the indwelling Spirit.
3. Logical conclusion: I can prove the Pythagorean theorem is valid and true.
4. Evidence/Historical fact, uninterpreted: I have verifiable evidence Reagan was once President.
5. Sensory perception of something external to me: I see my dog is lying at my feet.
6. Personal memory: I recall I had breakfast this morning.
7. Prediction from scientific theory: I calculate there will be a partial solar eclipse this week.
8. Trust in a Mentor: I trust this particular person to always tell me the truth, therefore I know …
9. Internal emotional state: I feel I’m happy, or I have empathy, compassion or sympathy for you.
10. Evidence/Historical fact, interpreted: I conclude from the fossil evidence in the geologic record that …
11. Determined facts: I accept something as fact because of a consensus determination by others, positive (affirmation) or negative (veto); i.e., I trust that these fact finders collectively know what they are talking about.
12. Imaginings: I imagine how things ought to have been in the Schiavo case.
The words of God are not merely language symbols such as text on paper or sound waves. The ones Jesus is addressing in the following passage were physically hearing Him but they could not Spiritually hear Him:
And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. – John 6:65
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. - I Corinthians 2:10-16
But if God says it, it is. It is certain because He says it. (Levels 1 and 2)
In the absence of space, things cannot exist.
In the absence of time, events cannot occur.
Physical causation requires both. And all cosmologies - whether big bang, multi-verse, multi-world, ekpyrotic, cyclic, hesitating or imaginary time - all of them presuppose physical causation.
Objective truth is only knowable to the One who sees "all that there is" all at once. Those living in the flesh travel worldlines in the physical Creation. And those who have weighed anchor from the flesh likewise cannot see "all that there is" all at once. Only God is omniscient.
Moreover, there had to be an uncaused cause of space and time and therefor causation itself. Indeed there is nothing of which anything can be made but His will - whether His creative will or His permissive will
He is the Creator. We call Him God and I AM.
Attempting to apply the Laws of Logic (Law of the Excluded Middle, Law of Identity) to God leads to error. The Jews for instance are expecting a Messiah, a man anointed of God to rule Israel at peace with its neighbors. They cannot see the Messiah as both man and God. But it is not an either/or.
Likewise they expect the Messiah to appear in power as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. They cannot see the Messiah comes both as the Lamb of God and again, as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. It is not an either/or.
Likewise they know that God is One. But they cannot see that He is One God in three Persons - Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
For the edification of the members:
Eph 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
Eph 4:30 And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
Eph 4:31 Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamor, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:
Eph 4:32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.
IMHO, I have done nothing to warrant such instruction, having no malice in my heart, and no intention to purposefully exasperate you or any other, as I believe my posts here will confirm.
Love, a certain Apostle said, rejoices not at evil but rejoices in the Good.
Wisdom, indeed.
I know you were SORT of kidding, [...]
I was fully and completely kidding, yanking your chain, pulling your leg... I am sorry you found cause to take offense. I assumed your natural sense of humor (which I do admire) would prevail, but I guess it is my fault, as I neglected to insert a [*wink*] or a [/sarc] tag for the humor impaired. :)
but I still think it's worth considering. I know I'M trying to offer my alleged act to God for Him to clean up for me and for the brethren
Certainly a commendable course, though I believe you to be finding fault where none exists. There will always be contention, especially on the subject of Marianism. I think that the only alternative is to quit posting things that are likely to exasperate- Such would be unfortunate IMHO, as all we would be left with is EC (Ecumenically Correct), plastic bannana, happy birthday posts where we can join hands and sway peacefully to the midi generated strains of KumBaYa.
Pure truth is never contentious, my FRiend, but the road toward that truth certainly is, and harsh, and even painful at times.
BRAVO! (clap, clap, clap...etc.)
I was so hoping for a straight answer.
In my defense I will say that if one is engaged in a real fight, and someone playfully makes a feint, that someone is likely to end up with a bloody nose.
But I regret responding tartly to a joke. My other excuses would have to do with insufficient PPM caffeine in the cerebral blood supply, male menopause, and sin.
Oh wait, sin is not an excuse. Darn.
Strength to you, sister.
It seems the nits are in season... All the more for the picking...
:D
For the record, I find no problem believing your words, and the personal assaults against your honor are unbecoming and uncharitable.
Furthermore, it is simply absurd to suggest alteration simply for removing footnotes- If the quotation is true to the spirit of the document, that is the point. That one may check the context is the reason for the attribution.
That the attribution was incorrect is an understandable mistake, one that I, and your accusers, have undoubtedly made. That mistake, being admitted, and corrected, should suffice, and it embarrasses me that FReepers would treat you so poorly in that regard.
My sincere apologies for that which you have been made to endure.
Ridiculous.
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.