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.
JPII can teach privately as the Bishop of Rome, or he can teach authoritatively ex cathedra with the authority of Peter. It has been made very clear by the Vatican he was not teaching or arguing ex cathedra.
The only reason it isn’t dogma is that the Greek Orthodox won’t accept it and that throws a monkeywrench into plans to fully unite with them one day.
None of that makes such “what the Catholic Church teaches.”
Prove it.
On the other hand,,,,,,,,,,,
Matthew 12: (Ignatius Edition RSV)
46 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood outside, asking to speak to him.
And He refused..........................?
No one has lied about Catholic beliefs on this thread.
No one needs to because Catholic beliefs are clear to anyone who can read.
Perhaps your complaint is with all the Catholics on the Padre Pio thread who happily and blasphemously call Mary their "co-redeemer."
Read the thread for clarity. It may help you not to make this discussion "personal" by saying FReepers are "lying."
Do we call both pilots "Co-pilot". I think that one is the pilot and one the co-pilot. Is that right? If so, which is "senior"? If the "pilot" is "senior", then don't we have a use of "co" which does not imply equality?
I think of the analogy of the relationship between the Father and the Son, which may set your Unitarian teeth on edge. But we say "Eternally begotten of the Father."
Those of us who have done some begetting frequently complain that the actual begetting part was all too momentary. And the usual begetting activity involves starting something up that wasn't there before. (And, BTW, nobody that I know of has any problem with "There was a time when the Theotokos did not exist.")
But still, bearing in mind the not very good reproductive biology of the age, we say the Son is begotten of the Father.
Bad analogy. It's what we got. This is theology, after all, not a crossword puzzle.
On the other hand, it's true, that many Catholics can't defend their religion. (Note to all Catholic parents: teach your children apologetics) Scott Hahn is a good start. Protestant converts offer the best testimony.
And no one is bothering the mod, just reminding them of the rules of FR.
You really need a claw tub too, and the rules require you paint it sky-blue
A mishmash that subtracts from the God-ordained work of Christ on the cross alone and gives it to the creature to accomplish.
Sometimes I think if a Catholic cannot understand where he errs in Mariology, he is almost too far gone. If someone can rationalize Mary on the cross with Christ and rationalize Mary paying for the sins of Christ's flock "with" Christ as a "co-redeemer," they can rationalize anything.
And therefore, they will believe anything...and nothing.
It could even be a great analogy in Heaven, and see then face to face, not through a glass, darkly. :D
And people are on their knees praying to them every day.
LOL.
You’re probably right, that may be one of the reasons the Church hasn’t defined it yet. We consider the EO Churches full Churches, and yes, their thoughts do carry some weight - this is how the Holy Spirit works within the Magisterium.
We shouldn't say "erroneous" in the sense of "mistaken." These misstatements of Catholic belief are deliberately false.
1st Thessalonians 4:13-18
John 11:11-14
Rev. 20:4-6; 12-15
No one "worships the Bible." No one prays to the Bible. No one kneels to the Bible.
So where is your evidence that any Bible-believing Christian "worships" the Bible or thinks it "wards off evil?"
Because without evidence, your accusation is empty sarcasm.
LOL
No one needs to because Catholic beliefs are clear to anyone who can read.
And yet the Catholic-hating lies about them continue apace.
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.