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.
“Well, the DARK side of being a Dominican parish is that the order can swipe your pastor.”
What I have found by experience is that most institutions are run by inertia. If one facet seems to be succeeding it throws the other facets off so the “powers that be” move the innovator from the success to the failure or the facet of the institution that is heading towards failure in order to maintain institutional equilibrium.
So, to “esteem” and keep your treasure, start sending “moderate” vibes of displeasure along with a “moderate” deficiency in the parish’s operating budget. That should satisfy the “powers that be” that all is going according to plan and they will not see any need to move him.
ena
Then again, "respect" seems to be a relative term:
That’s a lie. Born again believers HAVE to live up to the message of Christ. The indwelling Holy Spirit doesn’t let us get away with NOT living that way. Shows me you have no idea of how we live. Just because we don’t believe Mary is our mommy and that the wafer is our daddy doesn’t mean what we believe is wrong. JESUS is our strong tower and our salvation. Nothing else.
(Added emphasis is mine.)
Disrespect....I offered no disrespect to anyone.
You are mindreading...
I think what is being said is that “some” Catholics, (those who believe the way some non-Catholic believe) will be saved. Those who really believe and live what the Catholic Church teaches...not so much.
Kinda hard to do when there are 1000s of individual beliefs. I’d school you on them but I don’t think I could grasp that many beliefs but it comes down to just me and Jesus, which is laudable and Christian except when their own personal opinion excludes the Christianity of billions of Christians.
I think you nailed it. If one completely rejects Church teaching, but still goes through the motions of pretending to be Catholic, they might be saved. Devout Catholics are damned.
Operative words “I think”
More than a few FReepers have openly opined that there is no possible way to be a Catholic and be Saved.
Plus they don't get control of the money. The diocese gets its, I think it's, 7% or 8% of the cash flow, the diocese pays the friars the normal stipend, but they pay it to the order which then returns a smaller portion to the friars, who have, after all, taken vows of poverty. So that stipend is the only money the order gets from our parish, except for what individuals may want to donate.
The rest of the loot gets spent by the parish. We have a "linked" parish and school in Haiti, a Habitat for Humanity project, a gazillion dollar mortgage, and on and on and on. The Diocese owns the parish buildings. All the Dominicans own is a single family dwelling converted into a four bedroom two bath, itty bitty common room/chapel type place. We called one of the friars Harry Potter because his room was under the stairs.
And the Dominicans are a VERY democratic order. The rule is remarkable in that that's how Dominic set it out and it's very humane and hasn't needed to be changed all that much. (E.g.: Dominic said the newer and younger novices and friars should be served first at common meals because that would make it more likely that the older friar in charge of quartermaster stuff would make sure there was enough for everybody. Smart guy!)
I have my obligations to my lay community such that when I'm fully a member ("life promised", 3.5 years from now, D.V.) I will be obliged not by any explicit rule but by commitment to the community to go to the meetings where I am liable to be elected to some boring nuisance of a job. I can plead to be excused, but it would be a matter of conscience for me to refuse to serve just because it was a pain in the posterior.
Similarly, the rumor has it that Fr. B is up for a position that's really important to the Dominican life in the Eastern US. If that's the case and if he's elected, he'll go because community is one of the 4 "pillars" of the various branches of our family -- the others being prayer, study, apostolate (group and individual).
I have a sense of this because he was suggested for some other post, earlier this year and I told him I hoped he lost the election and he said he did too.
It's a real blessing to have a good pastor, but it's also good to change things up a little. In my limited experience in two denominations, if a pastor hangs around for more than about 7 years, things can get stultified, and then when the inevitable change happens it can be nasty. IMHO.
Sounds like you have a good system, but if you do want to keep him, then maybe you can convince him that your parish is better able to assist him in keeping his vow of poverty than the Order.
I just don’t like the pedestal she’s put on and especially when she’s elevated above the Son. I don’t mean to be disrespectful but once in a while I do get annoyed by what others say and I react not so nicely. Sorry.
Explain please.
Explain please, again. I’m not sure who you are talking to here and about what,exactly.
*blink* *blink*... !!! You'll have to forgive me if I sit down a moment and catch my breath, lest I swoon... Your forthright answer (the first of it's kind in my experience wrt this issue from RCs) gives cause for commendation, not to mention wonderment. Just a sec whilst I fumble for a paper bag (sans glue or aerosol, for now) to steady my breathing...
Now, for the inevitable question (I am sure you can see this one coming): Regarding said scantiness of evidence: DOESN"T THAT BOTHER YOU?
And this goes where this particular fool fears to tread, back into the relationship of tradition and Scripture. It doesn't seem strike me as gnostic because I don't see it as sprung full grown from the head of Zeus or of some particular guru (nor does it denigrate creation and creatures, but that's a digression).
I meant 'gnostic' in the general sense of hidden 'knowledge'. It is usually in the form of a 'new' discovery of a book of 'scripture' which purports to show a new, deeper knowledge of some sort. Such things were used as an attempt to shoehorn pagan beliefs into Christian thought, or to prove the veracity of some vain thought without evidence in true Scripture. A hallmark of such works is a blatant attempt to wheedle confirmation by way of applying extrapolative gymnastics to various obsure verses in true Scripture in order to lend credence to the counterfeit work.
A close cousin of gnosticsm (while not gnostic per se, as it is sanctioned) is the very same action applied by way of tradition rather than by an attempt to add to the Scriptures. A ready example can be found in the Hebrew Traditions, where the Hebrew faith was certainly manipulated to consolidate priestly power, and to introduce all sorts of heresy to include mysticism, among others.
Considering the heritage of Christianity, it's founding in the Hebrew faith, and pausing to consider (without rancor) that such manipulation already occured in Jehovah's Levitical system, wouldn't it be considered a sound concern, as taken up by Protestants, that ~no~ tradition should oppose or add to the spirit and faith as presented in the Holy Scriptures?
The world view, the 'what we bring to the table' of Scripture as the sole judge and arbiter of the Church... I can see how in that view a LOT of what we do and teach seems sort of flakey (at the kindest!)
There is much to applaud in the Catholic Church- There is much in majesty, formality, and reverence. There is earnestness and good works. The lion's share of Catholic practices are admirable and well meaning. I would not describe them as 'flakey' at all (or at least, for the most part :) ).
But, well, I have said this before and taken some heat (more heat than light) for it, but to me it is as though IHS and the Spirit started an avalanche which has been tumbling down a huge slope ever since increasing in size and complexity, swallowing trees, people houses, cities ..... ,and within this "chaotic" (in the scienterrific sense) thing the Bible shapes and corrects and guides and judges and provides a forming tension or orientation within the dynamic system.
That's a really good analogy. The criticism I would interject would be that there doesn't seem to be a way to back it all up. No reverse gear, if you might imagine. The corporate structure of the RCC would seem to be very rigid and hierarchical, and as with any corporate structure, it has a tendency to indemnify itself, to immunize itself against change.
Not that such rigidity is necessarily always a bad thing, mind you. I would consider the preservation of the Scriptures to be largely due to immovable Rome. One might suggest that such a structure serves to preserve, to keep heresy at bay...
But, and this is a big hairy but, I am afraid that such a structure would fail in one certain way- That being a case wherein heresy does enter. If such does occur, it seems to me that the monolithic and preservative qualities of the RCC structure would have a tendency to preserve and expand that accepted heresy, and would really provide *no* means of rejecting such a thing, especially as years roll by and it is incorporated into accepted Tradition. Since Tradition is given the same weight as the Word of God, that accepted heresy effectively changes the Word in just the fashion that Christ railed against while He was among us:
Mat 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Mat 15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honor thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
Mat 15:5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
Mat 15:6 And honor not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
Mat 15:7 Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying,
Mat 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
(e-Sword: KJV)
I am sure the priesthood of that day considered themselves likewise immune from error, and that they declared themseves God's hand in the concerns of man's salvation. But by Christ's own mouth they had been found to have corrupted the Word. What an awful thing, that the Savior's visit would condemn the very system thought to represent Him on the earth! It should be a caution to us all.
[...] we should probably spend more time asking, "What do your people think of this or that and how do you do the other?" than fulminating and breathing threats and slaughter.
While I agree (and I do, really), I doubt that such an arrangement is possible in a grand scheme. Our singular reliance on faith and scripture makes us an ill fit for the Catholic mold, and Catholic dependencies make them ill suited to the necessary independencies found in the Protestant mold. You and I may be able to speak rationally on the issue, but I think the temperment needed for such an exchange is hard to find without being EC, which is anethema to both sides.
betentacled (spell check does not recognize this word - drive on)
I believe the proper tense and form would be 'betentackleboxed', unless one has dangling participles, in which case, I can recommend a useful ointment. :D
How about this: Someone who approaches the Scriptures without the organizing and hermeneutic of catholic tradition [note singular, though I'm not sure why - caffein, brain,... you understand] will not find in them what we teach about Mary.
A stunning concession on your part (Where did I put that paper bag)! Then perhaps what must come next is a summary of the "organizing and hermeneutic of Catholic tradition" which allows for such as the Marian doctrine. Is there a way to present it in a workable form for the purpose of the discussion at hand?
Considering the above concession, can you see where Protestants' concerns are valid?
Thanks for your patience in this exchange. Will you join me in a glass of Brxgxft? We think it quite delicious.
I will have to pass. I recently imbibed several vials of screesplotz with an Alpha-Centurian. Being a Martian, perhaps you don't know, but consuming screesplotz and brxgxft within close proximity can cause an harmonic sort of flatulence that can cause bull moose to immediately enter a rutting state. As you can probably undertand, a rutting moose infestation is something I dare not chance, though I am quite thankful for the invitation. ;)
I am enjoying this conversation. I apologogize for my tardy reply. I am often unable, as illness intervenes. Please don't suppose I am ignoring you.
Yup, happens on both sides of THIS thread, doesn’t it?
I’m sorry I said that, really. I just get carried away sometimes with comments from your side of the river. Please forgive me.
Hey, Faddah! You want poor? We can do poor.
LOL
I don’t know that EVERY person agrees 100% with anything, scriptural or whatever! But we all pretty much believe that immersion after conversion is what we should do. And we do.
Well, since you don’t know what their hearts really are, or what their words and actions are really trying to say to you, you can’t judge them. People here are trying to show you the truth about what salvation really means and how to achieve it. Some of you call it hatred or Catholic bashing. So be it. We can’t help that. Our hearts are hurting for what we believe is heretical teaching about salvation.
If you’re going to quote me Mark, the least you can do is ping me to it. Rules, ya know. And if you’re going to quote me, please do it accurately.
My salvation is sure in Christ. We can stray but he is always drawing us back. I don’t know what kind of problem folks see with that. I think it’s comforting to know that even when we sin, He’s always wooing us to Himself. When we return, like the Prodigal Son, remember him, the Father is always waiting with open arms. Isn’t your Father like that?
Your remarks are nasty and incorrect. I thought more of you than that.
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.