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.
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.
How do YOU know most do not? Not counting Catholics or other liturgical churches, of course.
She is absolutely not elevated above the Son by Catholics! It sounds as if you've skipped all the Catholic posting on this subject and accepted the Protestant postings, all of which I recall reflect a frightening ignorance of the matter and a determination to persist in it.
Please read posts 4857 and 4858 and the posts that they replied to and tell me if you understand what I’m saying.
At least I think. I don’t just go lock step with what some group of men tell me to believe. I investigate truth for myself.
Can’t you just tell me what you meant and not have to ping your old friend to get his or her comments. Cheez. What a crock.
You answered it yourself with your modifier right there. Most Protestant denominations (Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican, Methodist) as still pretty much liturgical and practice infant baptism.
>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.<
Some people just don’t get it. Why would I rely on anyone and their own personal interpretation of Scripture when there are 2000 yrs of Magisterium, Tradition and Scripture. That Scripture that others interpret any way they personally want to is the product of Tradition, without which there would be no Scripture. That Tradition was carried on through the Magisterium which was chosen and appointed by Christ, himself and protected and guided by the Holy Spirit who came down at Pentacost!
Some non-Catholics choose not to believe that. Some non-Catholics choose to believe that they are the only arbiters of what Scripture says and anyone who believes differently can’t have it right, but some of those self-same non-Catholics belong to a Church of one. Or would that be the church of ego? Or of man-made conjecture? I’m not really sure.
I’m speaking about born again Christians who know they need immersion after conversion. I don’t believe most of the protestant churches think it’s salvific like Catholics do. I’m willing to bet most Protestants just think it’s a good thing to do, not that their child’s salvation depends on it.
She IS elevated by many Catholics, not all thankfully.
They do make sense; however, I can also see how there would be some confusion.
It is easiest to italicize or otherwise denote the other FReepers words when you are responding to one of their quotes. That makes it easier to differentiate between your words and their’s. There are plenty of sites that will show you the basic HTML tags to do this.
Problem here is we think your version is flawed and woefully limited. And it's not a recommendation to Catholics that some Protestants here dare to assume they know the spiritual state of millions of people they don't even know -- a knowledge that Catholics consider belongs only to God. To us it looks like overweening pride -- putting themselves in the place of God.
I want an opinion of whether what I wrote was understandable or not. I thought it required no further explanation.
Your statement is without merit.
However, you still overlook the FACT that MOST Protestants who are baptized as infants are never baptized again.
As far as whether or not Protestants view the Sacrament of Baptism as salvic, I don’t know and I’m not sure I care. In the past five centuries, Protestants have distorted, minimized or destroyed ALL of the Sacraments (not long ago we could at least take comfort in knowing that they had left Marriage alone, but that is no longer the case).
I suspect the misunderstanding here is that Catholics do see Mary as elevated -- though not nearly so much as and only in virtue of her Son. Perhaps we "elevate" Mary more than Protestants do Christ -- but it's not more than we honor Christ!
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”[...] 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.
Your post mirrors my concerns exactly, albeit you seem to retain a marvelous ability to say the same things in less than a paragraph or two, where I must write a boring tome.
It would seem that the Bereans' method was extolled as a proper form while in comparison, the priesthood was warned against in that it taught by rote the laws of men.
Very well posted FRiend.
There is nothing you said that is factual. You either innocently or deliberately have made absurd claims concerning how "most if not all" Protestants think about Catholics.
fortheDeclaration made no claim in #4712 "Protestants thinking they are going to get to be the judges...".
How can I say it is impossible to be more wrong? Further, fortheDeclaration speaks for one person, certainly not for "most if not all" Protestants.
"The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat./All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works, for they say and do not." Matthew 23:2-3. Sounds to me as if their teaching was binding -- they just didn't consider it binding on themselves!
Was I quoting you? I don’t remember - I went back a few links and didn’t see you mentioned. If you are referring to my mention of Mary - that is Mary Mother of God, not you.
I was referring back to the Reformed version - a long conversation going back across many threads with Petronski.
I mean and meant no disrespect to you.
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.