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.
By saying "you should try it sometime," I transferred to you your own insinuation that he had been less honest and less accurate.
***Nice dodge.***
No dodge. I have a Chrysler PT Cruiser, but no dodge.
But seriously, there is still no dodge. You make fantastic claims and I for one appreciate them very much. Run of the mill heretics are boring.
Perhaps I’m misinterpreting your syntax but it looks to me like you are saying Pauline writings are not scripture? Please elaborate.
I’m not saying works alone, Petronski. I’m saying FAITH, AND WORKS after you have come to the faith.
The whole of Christendom (I actually hate that word with blood-red passion) since the Geneva crowd consists of Catholics, Protestants . . . and . . . heretics. /sarcasm
The Truth about the book of Acts is that there isn't a “Christian” at all there until Acts chapter 11, Let alone a Catholic or a Baptist, or anything else.
In at least the first seven chapters of Acts, they were ALL temple-worshipping, Mosaic law-abiding, circumcision-observing, pork/shrimp-abstaining JEWS.
They were JEWS still living under the Mosaic legal system who had also accepted the Jewish Messiah, Jesus Christ, and were awaiting Israel's repentance (Acts 3:19-26), which was (AND STILL IS) the pre-condition for the return of Christ from God's Right Hand.
ANY visible church found in the Gospels and the first 11 chapters of Acts was a MESSIANIC church of ISRAELITES.
NO VISIBLE CHURCH on the earth today can find itself in Matthew 16:13-19 or anywhere in the first one/third of the book of Acts. And one would be pretty hard pressed to find anything like we have today in the Book of Acts at all!
Well I know “the rules” aren’t for everyone,just the big people, and some little people are “special”. I just think they might be happier in the kiddie pool where it’s understood that a full diaper can’t be helped.
Yes, I know that. I was trying to say that no one at all--including you--says works alone.
Yup...
Talk about someone walking with Jesus all the days of her life.
You think that since the name came later the group had to come later too?
That's weak logic.
“And if by grace, then is it NO MORE OF WORKS: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it NO MORE GRACE: otherwise work is no more work.” (Romans 11:6)
The two, grace and works, can not both be in operation at the same time for the salvation of the soul.
More like this:
NO VISIBLE CHURCH on the earth today can find itself [BY NAME] in Matthew 16:13-19 or [BY NAME] anywhere in the first one/third of the book of Acts.
You are making some progress, then.
***Perhaps I’m misinterpreting your syntax but it looks to me like you are saying Pauline writings are not scripture? Please elaborate.***
I would say rather that there is a substantial population (going right back to the first century) who have misinterpreted Paul and who base a rather esoteric theology upon those misinterpretations. Remember that even Peter instructs us to not misinterpret Paul.
With that said, very recently, a Reformed apologist instructed me that Pauline verse overrode the Gospels because the Gospels were merely about what Jesus said, and the Reformed interpretation of Paul was theology.
We hold Paul to be the second greatest Apostle and take his writings very seriously; however, the Gospels are the pinnacle of Scripture. The NT is to be seen through the lens of the Gospels and the OT interpreted through the NT.
The cake of Reformed theology, for instance is Paul and the icing is the OT. Jesus is largely irrelevant except when a snippet of verse taken out of context apparently agrees with an exotic Pauline interpretation.
We believe that Paul saved the Church from early extinction. He was chosen by God and made into an Apostle apart from the initial band of disciples. How could we not venerate him? His very handkerchiefs cured people of sickness and he preached to the Gentiles. He was a great great man of God.
Warping his Epistles into evil theologies does not sit well with us.
***Talk about someone walking with Jesus all the days of her life.***
Yet many of our brethren call her irrelevant and would say that Enoch or Elijah or Moses or Saul or David is more worthy than her.
Those that would call the Theotokos - the God bearer - the vile things that they refer to her (and the ones who honour her) as ought to be ashamed. They have an austere and puritan (Manichaean) theology, barren and cheerless.
Thank you for your own personal interpretation of poorly translated Scripture.
Romans 11:6 And if by grace, it is not now by works: otherwise grace is no more grace.
KJV sure stuffed that verse up like a polska kielbasa. LOL
Challoner on Romans 11:6:
If salvation were to come by works, done by nature, without faith and grace, salvation would not be a grace or favour, but a debt; but such dead works are indeed of no value in the sight of God towards salvation. It is not the same with regard to works done with and by God's grace; for to such works as these he has promised eternal salvation.
I posted you to apologize. Guess it wasn’t appreciated. I won’t post you again (if I can remember not to, LOL).
I haven’t changed my position one whit. What I’m doing is pointing out to you that “not named” does not necessarily mean “not present.”
***KJV sure stuffed that verse up like a polska kielbasa. LOL
Challoner on Romans 11:6:
If salvation were to come by works, done by nature, without faith and grace, salvation would not be a grace or favour, but a debt; but such dead works are indeed of no value in the sight of God towards salvation. It is not the same with regard to works done with and by God’s grace; for to such works as these he has promised eternal salvation.***
You’d better be careful where you stuff that polska kielbasa. Calvin liked it both ways, you know.
It’s okay to be judgemental on their side of the Tiber.
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.