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.
Good post. I’d say more but I’m on probation.
That's quite the coincidence. I'm still looking for that verse/command of sola scriptura.
They can't hurt the mother of God either.
Sneering was promised...It comes as no surprise.
I pray for God's mercy on all of his children and trust that He knows his own.
Sorry I was commanded to test the “spirits” with scripture being a BIG filter and measuring stick to judge.
Add historical writings/teachings/sermons from the early church fathers and you get a big fat ZERO.
Please, dogma instituted in 1950, suddenly you are potentially hell bond, how “magical” and arrogant. I just hope for those who died before 1950 they were “grandfathered” in.
How do you even know that you have it right. You say you feel it and you know it but it is just you saying it. It is still just your opinion, I'm not saying some of it isn't true. Or that you aren't a believer and only God knows if you are saved.
Do you realize how egocentric it is to try to convince a Catholic that you, a 40 to 70 yr old Marysecretary know better than 2000 of theology? A theology that you often misrepresent, by the way.
I am supposed to accept your interpretation of the New Testament of which each word was pondered and studied by a council of the Catholic Church and accepted or rejected as Truth. Do I throw away 2000 yrs of Tradition and theology on your word? Do I accept your feelings because they are strong and you really, reallly believe them>
I don't think so and it will never be thus.
BTW, I've never seen you point out anything through actual Scripture, I just get what you feel must be the truth because you feel it.
If you really knew me, you would know that the statements you are making are untrue.
It isn't about YOU, it is about Truth and the fullness of that Truth resides within the Catholic Church.
Is it wrong for me to want you to be saved and to know it before the casket closes down on you?
If it didn't sound so much like derision it might be acceptable but nothing you have said makes me long to be outside the Catholic Church.
Logical discourse . . .
and RC magisterical dogma . . .
likely the twain shall never meet.
Much appreciate the historical accuracy of your dating the recent additions to the
“NEVER CHANGING DOGMA OF THE RC EDIFICE.”
LOL.
Sigh.
For the record I have nothing against the idea of a possible assumption, more of a issue of parameters of the Christian faith, i.e. not detremental to your soul.
What gets me is the assurance that you are going to get it from not only God but by Peter and Paul as well. Come on, they wrote part of the New Testament, is Pius saying “Although neither Peter or Paul warned about questioning whoever is assumed in Heaven by your earthly body they will stand in line to display their wrath if you do.”
At least the “line of Peter” should have warned us of this “assumption” say AROUND 100-125 AD. It would only be fair and of proper “tradition” :)
If I did then your post would earn the same kind of extra credits.
I’m not about to tell God He can’t nor couldn’t do anything He chose to do.
I’m 100% against false fantasies blamed on God.
And this whole business of a pretended unchanging homogeneous dogma from 400 years before the RC edifice began until this moment
is an utter SET of brazen falsehoods of galactic proportions.
What a list of lies from the pit!
But some chronic complainers who seem to do it for dramatic effect I do not consider to be thin-skinned, just annoying.
That is reading back in to the text what was later revelation, and some would read “Christian” in to the text from their own (or their own church's) definition. That is, isogesis, which may cause a confusion of the record.
The point I was making is that those preaching from Acts chapter 1 all the way to Acts chapter 11 were preaching TO ISRAEL ONLY, about Messianic subjects, including the restoration of the Nation of Israel (potential in their day), the return of Jesus Christ to this earth conditioned upon Israel's repentance as a nation, and the establishment of the Davidic Kingdom promised by all of the Old Testament prophets.
Not one word was spoken of a “church age,” or ANYTHING like it. Nothing at all was preached about a perpetual Christian church.
The Church which is the Body of Christ was still a mystery hid in God, and not to be revealed at all until after the conversion of the Apostle Paul. It was not FULLY enunciated until after the Jews of the diaspora, based in Rome (Acts 28) had rejected their Messiah and His Kingdom (Davidic).
The picture appears to be that many use the following equation:
This is what WE are.
+ This is what WE do.
+ This is what WE are told by our priests.
+ This is what OUR tradition says.
+ This is what our councils have come up with.
+ WE feel beautiful about it all.
___________________________________________
= That must be, therefore, what the Bible is talking about.
I tried to find “Catholic,” “uniquely catholic,” or some preponderance of the same in Matthew 16, but I just can’t find it.
WELL PUT.
VERY WELL PUT.
Thanks.
If you reject the grace of God and follow instead, the faith/works gospel of the RCC or anyone else, you are not saved. (Gal.1:8-9)
There is only one true Gospel (Eph.2:8-9)
Catholics believe what the Bible says.
Your own sources admit they add tradition to what the Bible teaches.
[ Many Roman Catholics are hearing the true Gospel on these threads... ]
And with the true Gospel, they are also hearing a boatload of lies about Catholicism.
No, they are seeing what Catholicism says about itself from its own sources.
Does Catholicism preach the same Gospel as Protestants or not?
If not, only one Gospel is the true one, salvation by faith alone in the saving work of Christ or faith plus works.
Justification as an event, or Justification as a process.
Nope.
Your statement is flawed, in that you separate Catholics from Christians. Catholics and Protestants teach the same Gospel, but the Protestant version is burdened by severe errors (starting with sola scriptura and sola fide).
LOL!
I state that Catholics aren't Christians since they aren't saved, and that is due to the fact that Catholicism teaches another Gosepl, that rejects the Protestant view Justification by faith alone.
So, yes, if you reject sola fide you aren't saved since that is the true Gospel.
So, Catholics and Protestants aren't preaching the same Gospel, they are different.
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/trentall.html
Now where did you get that from?
You further state that when Catholics and protestants disagree, only one can be correct, and the wrong one goes to hell.
If a Catholic and Protestant disagree on the Gospel, only one can be correct and believing the wrong Gospel sends you to hell.
Below is exactly what I wrote.
The Roman Catholic, like everyone else is going to have to reject what he has been taught and believe what the Bible says, no different then any other unbeliever does. God is indeed long suffering, not wanting any to perish, but the route to salvation is narrow, not broad. Many Roman Catholics are hearing the true Gospel on these threads and are going to have to deal with the truth of what they have read. That is how God's grace operates, by getting the truth to those who need to hear it and those who reject it will be judged by those words they rejected.
It’s true that “God worked with such as Enoch or Elijah or Moese or Saul or David” and yes, all these were His creations. As was Mary. But the differmece betwen them and her can’t be overlooked. She bore Him in her womb. He drew His “Word made flesh” from her. He lived from her substance—so to speak—in her womb and drank from her breasts after His birth. Such an indwelling of Christ in a human being!...we can only imagine.
He didn’t live 30 years of His earthly existence in the homes of Enoch and Elijah and Moses and Saul and David. What familial relationships must have taken place—hidden from our sight and knowledge— in that home in Nazareth, that place where we are told that “he went home and was subject to them”.
That Mary was so uniquely chosen can’t be escaped.
As for the rest of your post-—please show me the evidence that you have that Catholics are told they will “go to hell if they do not accept the dogma of the Assumption”.
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.