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.
>>Prepare yourself, NMMom, copper wiring has become obscenely expensive. Store it inside.<<
I will! Thanks!!!!!
We believe that the Holy Spirit is present in our lives and in our church service. He indwells the believer. We don’t have to eat a wafer to have the Real Presence with us. He always is.
Yes.
Both are necessary.
The Catholic understanding of “Real Presence” is “Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity.”
That’s not present in your worship service.
The majesterium of the Catholic church, functions primarily, in my mind, to ensure that the church doesn't become wayward with influences of for example, "new age" trends and ideas that go against God. That is why you won't see too many fringe elements in the Catholic church. I think it is the fringe elements that have tarnished the image of these charismatic movements that are basically admirable. Claiming to know who will be saved or damned, is not a good thing. Being truly filled with the Holy Spirit is.
I meant everything you said in post #4326. I think that is the one I responded to.
If I should say "all Catholics practice birth control" that is a lie.
If I should say "Catholics practice birth control" it is not a lie. To counter with the argument that "they are not Catholics" is specious. Technically correct? Maybe. But, by the time you finished eliminating the "not Catholic" Catholics you wouldn't have many left.
A favorite expression of some Catholics is "That is not Catholic Teaching" as if the things discussed just never happen. That is self serving baloney.
Like Catholics are slaves etc.
Would you be insulted if I said you are required to submit your will and intellect to the Bishops, the Pope, and the Magisterium? Well you are. You might not be a slave but when the big boys say "jump" you'd better be prepared to jump.
Code of Canon Law
Canon 752
While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic Magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ's faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.
Canon 753
While not infallible in their teaching, [Catholic bishops] are the authentic instructors and teachers of the faith for Christ's faithful entrusted to their care. The faithful are bound to adhere, with a religious submission of mind, to this authentic Magisterium of their Bishops.
BTW that is Catholic teaching.
Diferent perspectives?
I can tell you what I think about them, I can pretend that what I think is fact, by cutting and pasting some quotes or excerpts without links, and it will still likely come across like a meaningless insult. That is exactly what you do.
Here's the tough part what exactly do they need to have Faith in. Is it the good works they do in his name? Is it the consistency of their religious practices?
The statement "That is not Catholic Teaching" is not intended to address what some might do, only to address what Catholicism teaches.
By the analysis in the above post, the statement "Unitarians are wife beaters" is technically accurate (so long as there are at least two Unitarians doing so), but who would go around saying such a thing? A statement like that tends to defame the entire group because of the misdeeds of a few. It's not charitable, to say the least, and there is nothing inherent to Unitarianism that teaches spousal abuse.
Similarly, the statement "Catholics worship Mary" imputes to all members of a group the guilt of some portion of that group.
I'm sure some Catholics worship Mary, but that is not what the Catholic Church teaches.
I really liked that film.
I think you're right about not seeing anything positive from Hollywood anymore. I thought Mel Gibson's "The Passion" was very powerful, but focused too much on the physical.
One of the definitions of Sola Scriptura.
Wonderful point.
I believe most of the non-Catholics here believe you are fully vested Christians. Maybe a majority believe you will dig a wheelbarrow of dirt to get the one critical pail; God Alone! But, if you wish to take the winding path that's up to you.
Pretend you are in Japan where they revere and respect their elders. Your elder has spoken! IOW I think you have an overactive imagination.
By the analysis in the above post, the statement "Unitarians are wife beaters" is technically accurate (so long as there are at least two Unitarians doing so), but who would go around saying such a thing? A statement like that tends to defame the entire group because of the misdeeds of a few. It's not charitable, to say the least, and there is nothing inherent to Unitarianism that teaches spousal abuse.
Similarly, the statement "Catholics worship Mary" imputes to all members of a group the guilt of some portion of that group.
I'm sure some Catholics worship Mary, but that is not what the Catholic Church teaches.
*******************
Excellent examination of the issue, Petronski. Thanks.
Slowly, but surely, we are bringing you all around. ;-0
The Baptist Churches I've attended and been a member of believed that Christ was with us because two or more are gathered in his name and because as believers in The Gospel he dwells in us. The bread and wine are just bread and wine. The water is just water. It is the Spirit that brings us together in communion.
Born again Christians know it is in the Lord Himself and because of His sacrifice on the cross and the shedding of His blood for us. Works are only done after faith enters into the picture. I pray this is what they mean when they say they are trusting in the Lord for their salvation.
Why didn’t you tell me you were at our worship service, Petronski? I would have greeted you!
Anglican Eucharistic theology is divergent in practice, reflecting the essential comprehensiveness of the tradition. A few Low Church Anglicans, expressing a Zwinglian ethos, tend to take a strictly memorialist view of the sacrament. In other words, they see Holy Communion as a memorial to Christ's suffering, and participation in the Eucharist as both a re-enactment of the Last Supper and a foreshadowing of the heavenly banquet - the fulfillment of the Eucharistic promise. Most Low Church Anglicans believe in the Real Presence but merely deny that the presence of Christ is carnal or can be localised in the bread and wine. Some High Church or Anglo-Catholic Anglicans hold closely to the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, first promulgated by Scholastic theologians in the Middle Ages which understands the Eucharist as a re-enactment of Christ's atoning sacrifice, with the elements transformed into Christ's Body and Blood.Most Anglicans, however, implicitly or explicitly adopt the Eucharistic theology of consubstantiation, first articulated by the Lollards, or Sacramental Union, first articulated by Martin Luther[citation needed]. Luther's analogy of Christ's presence was that of the heat of a horseshoe thrust into a fire until it is glowing. In the same way, Christ is present in the bread and the wine.
Anyone tempted to dismiss this info outright as merely wikipedia is welcome to demonstrate where it is wrong.
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.