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.
So the more you look for other sources of doctrine the less regard you have for the bible. This is evident in Marianism. Marianism is the most damning evidence of RC disrespect for the Word of God and, therefore, God Himself.
I know that. But I think some people stayed to think they could be a witness to their community. One of my nurses when I had my first open heart surgery was a saved Catholic. She stayed for that reason.
That term alter Christus does not mean the Catholic Church teaches each priest is some new fresh Messiah. Catholicism teaches no such thing.
you’ve done ALL of those. for example I asked “can you show me in the bible....”
and your answer was:
“I WILL NOT”
And your cute reply to another Q was to cite a bible passage about not giving knowlege to ignorant dogs...
That would be what I am specifically denying. Notice I said "...does NOT equal..."
G3304
μενοῦνγε
menounge
men-oon'-geh
From G3303 and G3767 and G1065; so then at least: - nay but, yea doubtless (rather, verily).
I'll paste this, from Haydock's Commentaries:
Luk 11:28 Greek: Menounge, imo vero, yes indeed. Our Saviour does not here wish to deny what the woman had said, but rather to confirm it: indeed how could he deny, as Calvin impiously maintained, that his mother was blessed? By these words, he only wishes to tell his auditors what great advantage they might obtain by attending to his words. For the blessed Virgin, as St. Augustine says, was more happy in having our Saviour in her heart and affections, than in having conceived him in her womb. (Tirinus)
You said “show me where it says that in the bible”
and I replied
“I will not.”
That was not refusal to answer a question. “Show me...” is a command.
ok... CAN YOU show me in the bible where it says to worship Mary?
I cannot.
I think the Marianists and the Jesuits should duke it out in a TV Death Match to settle this once and for all
Thank you for the ping, Dolly. I spent far too much time reading this today, and not participating, but you are right about it being a fascinating discussion.
RCs say, if Mary had not agreed to become pregnant, the plan of salvation would not have worked. My response is, "If Mary's parents hadn't....... so why not honor, venerate, adulate, glorify, revere, love, praise, enshrine ete etc etc etc them also?".
They could be “Grandparents of God”.
"A disciple and friend of St Bernard, Arnold of Chartres, shed light particularly on Mary's offering in the sacrifice of Calvary. He distinguished in the Cross "two altars: one in Mary's heart, the other in Christ's body. Christ sacrificed his flesh, Mary her soul". Mary sacrificed herself spiritually in deep communion with Christ, and implored the world's salvation: "What the mother asks, the Son approves and the Father grants" (cf. De septem verbis Domini in cruce, 3: PL 189, 1694)..."
I'll see that and raise you:
7. The saints have said wonderful things of Mary, the holy City of God, and, as they themselves admit, they were never more eloquent and more pleased than when they spoke of her. And yet they maintain that the height of her merits rising up to the throne of the Godhead cannot be perceived; the breadth of her love which is wider than the earth cannot be measured; the greatness of the power which she wields over one who is God cannot be conceived; and the depths of her profound humility and all her virtues and graces cannot be sounded. What incomprehensible height! What indescribable breadth! What immeasurable greatness! What an impenetrable abyss!
http://www.ewtn.com/library/Montfort/truedevo.htm
Incidentally, for the record, I think hypothesis contrary to fact makes a bad argument. We don't and can't know what might have been had Mary said, "No." Aslan never says what might have been had something happened which didn't happen. I know 'cause I saw the movie.
What do you suppose the effect of Paul's teaching would have had if the Bereans approached the scriptures through “the organizing and hermeneutic of ‘the Jewish synagogue’ tradition”, as did the Thessalonians?
Act 17:11-12, “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.”
It would appear that when we approach the scriptures through any humanly constructed “organizing and hermeneutic ..... tradition”, what ever it is (ex. Liberation Theology), we will end up with the interpretation that the constructor desires rather than letting the scriptures speak for themselves under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It would appear that is what the word translated “noble” in the passage means; a willing mind.
Though we both have been on FR for some time I am not familiar with you and your posting style. Your participation in this thread leads me to believe you are a dyed-in-the-wool practicing Catholic and that's all to the good. (I also see a slight tendency to proseletyze. :) Fine, but don't let you're expectation of results to be realized.)
Also, I believe you take criticism of the Catholic Church personally and , at times, strike out at the critic. That's not good.
Objectively, we meet all kinds in life and on this forum. Nasty, dishonest, disassembling, disruptors, sweet, innocent, wanderers, you name it. Most though, are sincere and honest despite their different "styles". Frankly, I feel you let emotion take over at times. Perhaps a short break, a coffee, wine, beer, (whatever) break is advisable at these times.
Please note I am not holding myself up as an example though, in my 8th decade, I am s-l-o-w-l-y improving.
I didn’t think so
Why would I even try?
Not all Popes are thought to be saints.
Items touched by a saint are relics. That's all.
Oh I see. I guess we can call this a "Pre-Publication" sale.
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.