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.
Once something has been defined, you can't not accede to it and still be a Catholic in good standing. But many things have not been defined, and many may never be. To have trouble accepting a particular teaching is not heresy -- to insist (especially publicly) that you're right over the Church is.
The term "mortal sin" is tossed around pretty carelessly, even by some Catholics. To be mortal sin (the "sin unto death"), the matter involved must be serious ("grievous" is the preferred expression), the person must have full knowledge of its gravity, and the person must give full consent of his will.
The Church doesn't presume to send people to Hell. Some phrase it that not even God send people to Hell -- they send themselves.
I do hope that you noticed that Padre Pio is not the pope.
I know there was some confusion about who is Pope and who is not, but I can tell you that Padre Pio was never a Pope. He’s allowed his opinion, but unless it comes from the Vatican, he’s out of luck.
No matter how many exclaimation points a poster puts in.
The "co" is meant as "cum," meaning "with."
Some people may be fooled by this silly wordplay, but not those whom God gives eyes to see.
Very few people are fooled by your silly wordplay, but I continue to correct it anyway.
Do you believe Mary is the "co-redeemer?"
Not the way YOU define it.
Do Mary and Christ both redeem men?
No.
Say it ain’t so!!!!!
Thomas Jefferson thought there should be a revolution every 20 years. No doubt this is what the United States teaches. Otherwise why would they consider him a Founder?
C'mon now. Men are imperfect, and even Saints get it wrong sometimes. St. Thomas Aquinas wasn't sure a person existed at conception - is that what the Church teaches?
You are beginning to get it.
"patrons"?
A clear sign of the Catholic Church's discouraging the reading of Scripture is the indulgence granted for reading the Bible for half an hour.
If you want to discourage something, the best way is to reward it, I always say.
• A partial indulgence is granted the Christian faithful who read sacred Scripture with the veneration due God’s word and as a form of spiritual reading. The indulgence will be a plenary one when such reading is done for at least one-half hour [provided the other conditions are met].here
Yep, sho' 'nuff is discouraging!
PET: The Catholic Church says it was Christ.
No, it doesn't. As the link showed, the RCC says Christ and Mary paid for men's sins and together they bought God's elect by their individual sufferings, each through their own "cross."
As Christ said, "by thy words thou shalt be condemned" (Matt. 12:37)
redemptor : redeemer (Christ).
Or cum redemptor is the proper term
the word means to "buy". Mary hasn't bought us in any sense of the words, Latin or English. And "co" means full partner, not "with"
The Catholic Church does NOT say this, and the link does NOT show this.
Yet you clearly stated there IS no "co" in Latin, and the term used is "cum."
I don't really want to jump into your convo here, but I want to point something out for any Lurkers who may be watching this thread. The link is to another thread on FR, an article written by a single Priest concerning Padre Pio and the proposed title of "Co-redemptrix." In no way is it an authoritative Church document.
What link is she talking about? The Padre Pio (who is not the Pope BTW) link?
Mrs. Mable Freebucker from Dry Gulch, New Jersey. The Answer was: The motto of Harvard.
Now we get to watch the ducking and back-tracking
It’s about time Eckleburg duck and backtrack.
What? Into "many gods?"
I believe so.
Wow. Amazing what the saints of the RCC teach, isn’t it? Astounding.
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.