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.
To defend your position and convince me that you are correct and I am wrong? Possibly?
It is called DEBATE or DISCUSSION and it helps to explain your side. Usually people are happy to have someone willing to listen to their ideas, as I have repeatedly done.
It's the same problem as the one I mentioned earlier, the question of continuity between the Church before Constantine and the Church after him. If you think the CC is humanly constructed, the Council of Nicea is as good a date as any and better than some for the construction date. If yhou don't, then you think legalization of Xtry was a problem which the Church wrestled with then and still wrestles with now. Things were so much clearer when it was against the law.
Having swung my blade in the formal manner, I now bow and stolidly await your riposte.
O-enat-sama, Arigato Gozaimasu
2. Does that mean therefore, to you, that to attack the Catholic Church or what it believes – e.g. the Mary doctrine - is to attack Christ, is to attack you individually and collectively?
"Worship" of Mary is not my position. I'm Catholic.
MAN! You HAVE to break down #1 at least. It’s got three propositions! (I think. At least.)<p.(I know it’s hot and humid and htings tend to stick together and all ....)
Folks can attack the Catholic Church all they want.
When they attack the Catholic Church for something she does not espouse or teach, they are lying.
Oh well, if you care to address the component parts, I'd be interested in reading what you have to say.
If someone says what enat just said in the manner in which he said it, and even though he cloaked the, highly debatable and certainly not agreed upon, "The Church is a human Institution" proposition in his premise, I do not feel attacked personally.
If I make a proposition and someone responds merely by asserting its contrary, and does so repeatedly without examining the consequences, "penumbras and emanations" of either side, it's not personal, really, but it feels like an attack. Buried in there is, I think, an "I don't care what you say ..."
One or two "Pope is the anti-Christ, Cat'lick Church is the Ho of Babylon" is not an attack to me. But a refusal to entertain how reasonable people of Good will and who at least THINK they love the Lord would disagree, that's an attack.
I WOULD say, by way of riposte, that some "attackers" view arguments as proxies for the Church, which they hate, and so attack the arguments hatefully.
Gotta go. (1) body (2)membership in body by Euch (3)Euch only available in Cat’lick Church.
“Chlanna nan con thigibh a so’s gheibh sibh feoil!”
I think you read me wrong here. I am not addressing the Church. I’m just looking at a method of interpretation.
Why isn’t the organizing and hermeneutic....tradition of the Berean assembly, simply “a readiness of mind...searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so”, enough for us today? The results of the effort seemed to be successful; many believed. Are we so different than the Jews and Greeks of Paul’s time that we need more interpretive aids than they did?
During our last outage a rather amusing thing (to some) happened to me. I have an electric lift recliner and was comfortably perched in it, fully reclined, when the power went out. I had a devil of a time climing down off that infernal trap. (I plan to give it to the Salvation Army and replace it with a new wall hugger manual recliner.) I can handle the hand lever (I think).
Now - back to the subject:
Hey, My Dear FRiend, those who dish out personal nasty should expect to get it back. I’m sure you didn’t see this line from Dr. E to mgist.
>>Has the “mystery which hath been hid from the ages and from generations” “now been made manifest” to you, mgist?<<
If anyone steps over the line, it should expect to be returned.
Dr. Eckleburg and mgist are adults and I am certain they can handle themselves. I took exception to the reply of mgist however because I though it crossed the line into personal attack.
I invite you to compare the two:
Dr. Eckleburg: ">>Has the “mystery which hath been hid from the ages and from generations” “now been made manifest” to you, mgist?<<
mgist: "Again, I have to remind you really have little knowledge of the Catholic church, other than your Al Jazeera-like perceptions. Nothing you say is a complete truth. It is almost so distorted I no longer consider you simply misguided. I don’t understand what motivates people to be such radical “haters”. But hey, if you feel that saves you, go for it. It works for Al Qaeda."
In any event it is water over the dam and I am certain neiher one of them is "carrying a grudge" today.
Truly though I don't recall seeing any poster other than you refer to your beliefs as "Cat'lick" or the Church as "Ho."
In a row?!?
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.