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.
Is there an actual list of doctrines or dogma that Catholics absolutely must accept and adhere to in order to remain in the Catholic Church, or to receive the Eucharist?
Conversely, is there a list of optional dogmas for Catholics?
And yet He call them hypocrites and vipers! He knew their hearts, their motives.
At other times, he "breaks" the laws,
He did not break His own laws, He fulfilled them. He showed the extent of His laws. That an outward practice of them is not enough. After all, if we look at the laws in a deeper sense then just the outward appearance of what they say, they point to two things, Love God, and Love our neighbor, not just outwardly, but also with the heart.
The momentous difference is that now the new Torah is to be spread to all the nations.
"Now" it is to be spread...why is there evidence in the OT of people other then Jews being saved? Rahab the harlot was not an Israelite. She did not practice the Law, did she even "know" it? The key is she trusted God.
Small Straws In A Soft Wind by Marsha Burns — June 12, 2008:
Beloved, I have called you to walk in the liberty of My Spirit. Be discerning, and set a watch for those who come in by stealth to spy out your liberty. Do not yield even for a moment to a religious spirit, who desires to bring you into the bondage of control and religious exercise. Your freedom can only be maintained as you submit your spirit to Me alone. Be strong and resolute.
Jeremiah 1:8 Do not be afraid of their faces, For I am with you to deliver you, says the LORD.
It seems that if one is allowed to select the data, one can prove almost anything.
It also seems that many of our opponents, maybe in an effort to persuade the lurkers, act as though they think that repeating a falsehood makes it true.
It is intriguing to think that it is a Buddhist notion that the Dharma declines in the ages after Shakyamuni's paranirvana, that while individuals here and there may come to enlightenment, in general the Dharma will grow weak.
While I would hesitate to call Buddhism "pagan", this seems to be an exogenous taint in Sola Scriptura thinking. God is unable or unwilling to keep His promise to the Church, and Jesus is NOT with US, but only with individuals until the end of the age.
So naturally, with the supposed norm of a weak and scattered grasp of the Divine revelation, there would almost inevitably rise up Christian sects and divisions and groups, just as even in a relatively small country like Japan there are the Soto and Rinzai sects of Zen Buddhism, Pure Land, Ritsu, and Shingon Buddhism, and as you move onto the Asian mainland, sects proliferate wildly.
Anyway, I can see how someone who is seeking to be given offense by Catholic Dogma could read into Munificentissimus Deus some wrathful consequence to disputing it, but I don't think one can seriously argue that failure to believe it is a ticket to Hell.
But then I'm not sure serious argument is the intent.
V. 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God" for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
v. 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
I maintain that the reason we don't work that way is that what's foremost in our weltanschauung is a vital relationship with Christ. I say again that most of our explicitly expressed dogmata arise out of controversy and, I think, should be viewed with that understanding.
But, well, speaking as one manly man to another, which would you rather do, read Grey's Anatomy or be with a woman you love? While a some knowledge of anatomy is helpful in a loving relationship, (and false knowledge could be disastrous -- or at least pretty funny) it should not be mistaken for love.
For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead.
Jas 2:28 (RSV)
On a side note I do know what Jesus clearly said and did in order to be saved and not face God's wrath. What a dilemma, Pius or Christ, hmmmm, tough decision there. And one wonders why the RCC gets called out on their Marian philosophy.
I will/have explained my interpretation of James....could you please explain your interpretation of the verses from Gal.
James is speaking of works being done “because” we have been saved.
Short gnomic wiseacre answer:
Works don’t lead to Salvation. Works ARE salvation.
I won’t be back until this PM, I fear.
I don’t know if this list or the dates are accurate.
Came from the following:
http://www.hissheep.org/catholic/a_list_of_catholic_teachings.html
There was a minor amount of background stated with some of the items that I didn’t copy over.
1. Prayer for the dead and the sign of the cross. 310 AD.
2. Wax candles used in church (for prayer purposes?) 320 AD
3. Veneration of saints and angels. About 375 AD
4. The mass adopted as a daily celebration. 394 AD
5. The worship of Mary and use of the term “mother of god”, originated at the council of Ephesus. 431 AD
6. Priests began dressing differently than the laity. 500 AD
7. The doctrine of purgatory established by Gregory the great. 593 AD
8. The Latin language to be used for worship and prayer in church imposed by Pope Gregory I. 600 AD
9. The practice of directing prayers to Mary or dead saints. 600 AD
10. The title of “pope” or “universal bishop” was first been given to the bishop of Rome by the emperor, Phocas. 610 AD
11. The kissing of the pope’s feet. 709 AD
12. The temporal power of the pope. 750 AD
13. Worship of cross, of images and relics was authorized. 788 AD
14. Holy water mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by the priest was authorized. 850 AD
15. The veneration of St. Joseph began. 890 AD
16. The baptism of bells was instituted by Pope John XIV. 965 AD
17. Canonization of dead saints, first by Pope John XV. 995 AD
18. Fasting on Fridays and during lent were imposed. 998 AD
19. The mass was developed gradually as a sacrifice; attendance made obligatory in the 11th century. 1000’s AD
20. The celibacy of the priesthood was decreed by Pope Hildebrand, Boniface VII. 1079 AD
21. The Rosary, or prayer beads was introduced by Peter the Hermit. 1090 AD
22. The inquisition of heretics was instituted by the council of Verona. 1184 AD
23. The sale of indulgence, commonly regarded as a purchase of forgiveness and a permit to indulge in sin, began. 1190 AD
24. The dogma of transubstantiation was decreed by Pope Innocent III. 1215 AD
25. Confession of sins to the priest at least once a year was instituted by Pope Innocent III, in the Lateran council. 1215 AD
26. The adoration of the wafer (host) was decreed by Pope Honorius. 1220 AD
27. The Bible forbidden to laymen and placed in the index of forbidden books by the council of Valencia. 1229 AD
28. The scapular was invented by Simon stock (English monk) . 1287 AD
29. The Roman church forbade the cup to the laity, by instituting the communion of one kind in the council of Constance. 1414 AD
30. The doctrine of purgatory was proclaimed as a dogma of faith by council of Florence. 1439 AD
31. The doctrine of sacraments affirmed. 1439 AD
32. The Ave Maria, part of the last half. 1508 AD
33. The council of Trent, declared that tradition is of equal authority with the Bible. 1545 AD
34. The Apocryphal books were added to the Bible also by the council of Trent. 1546 AD
35. The Creed of Pope Pius IV was imposed as the official Creed 1560 years after Christ and the apostles. 1560 AD
36. The immaculate conception of the virgin Mary was proclaimed by Pope Pius IX. 1854 AD
37. Pope Pius IX proclaimed the dogma of Papal Infallibility. 1870 AD
38. Pope Pius X, condemned together with “modernish”, all the discoveries of modern science which are not approved by the church. 1907 AD
39. Pope Pius XI condemned the public schools. 1930 AD (Maybe this was not such a bad one.)
(Pssst: “from ex cathedra” is redundant. “Ex cathedra” works. “Ex” means “from” or “out of”)
Gotta be terse. I have an appointment. Before noon! The horror!
I don’t think God’s wrath is binary, on/off. I do think you don’t have to be Catholic to be saved, but it helps.
I also think that any one who claims to be a serious student of the question and thinks that the Catholic Church teaches you have to be a member to be saved is kidding himself.
24. The dogma of transubstantiation was decreed by Pope Innocent III. 1215 AD
There are a whole lotta people out there who aren't going to be able to understand Transubstantiation. Therefore, according to Moi, you are not required to believe it in all its full Thomistic glory.
It is good to believe that our Lord is "really present" in the sacrament. And it is a fer shur no-no to teach that transubstantiation is wrong or that He is NOT "really present" in the sacrament.
“I maintain that the reason we don’t work that way is that what’s foremost in our weltanschauung is a vital relationship with Christ. “ (Mad Dawg)
“Yes, there are around 16 or so major subjects entailing subtopics within. 7 deal with the Sacraments, the others define Church beginnings, Unity/Trinity of God, Mother of the Redeemer, God the Redeemer, God the Creator etc...” (rollo tomasi)
**************************
Some practice of some sacraments necessary to a “vital relationship with Christ” (???)
Mt 5:20-26
Jesus said to his disciples: “I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the Kingdom of heaven.
“You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.
But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.
Therefore, if you bring your gift to the altar, and there recall that your brother has anything against you, leave your gift there at the altar, go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Settle with your opponent quickly while on the way to court with him.
Otherwise your opponent will hand you over to the judge, and the judge will hand you over to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison. Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny.”
I am not convinced by this response. And my lack of conviction in your position has nothing to do with “emotionalism or intellectualism”.
It does have to do with: faith and reason, will and intellect, mind and heart—all of which are faculties of the soul.
These are not to be confused with emotionalism nor intellectualism. One seeking to do the will of God is helped to discern the difference.
It’s always the same. Protestants claim sola Scriptura, then cannot even settle on which version/translation/interpretation that they insist everyone go by.
You yourself, while you might not personally send me to hell, have no difficulty thinking that God will, should I not conform to your salvation formula, gleaned from bits and pieces of the OT and NT, verses here and there.
So while protestants claim that they will be sad and sorry to see all us idol-worshipping/vain repetitioning/Mary elevating/magesterium conforming Catholics get our just reward in the fiery pit, because we didn’t accept the Lord Jesus Christ as our personal Savior according to the protestant forumula, and that all they care about is seeing Catholics get saved, somehow it has all rung a bit hollow.
I have read this entire thread. Parts of it more than once. And I have YET to be convinced that protestants are more than a hodge-podge of judgements about who does and does not pass through the pearly gates. Protestants are not the boss of heaven! Demands that Catholics “prove” everything they believe by scripture falls flat on its face, because yes, scripture is inspired and holy, but it does not stand alone, for the Catholic. The hubris of the protestants, even those who claim they are neither Catholic nor protestant, is stunning.
It simply is not up to any of the protestant sects. God alone knows our hearts, God alone decides. Catholic worship does not, no matter how gratified protties would be to see it, condemn us to the Lake of Fire for Eternity.
The folly of the protestants is demanding that everyone believe the way THEY believe, or perish. Christ Himself spoke against that, when He tripped up the scribes and Pharisees. I’m sure the scribes and Pharisees rationalized that what they were doing was for the salvation of the people, too. Christ showed it for the empty death trap it was: a whited sepulchre.
You, FTD, do not have the last word on this. For one thing, nothing in Catholic liturgy, ritual, or worship EVER rejects Christ. The whole thing is about loving Him with all our hearts, minds and souls. Nothing puts anyone or anything above Christ. When we believe Christ is present, we ALL bow down, the priest included; we worship Him with our bodies as well.
Perhaps I misjudged your response, when you said that the Bible convicts Catholics and Christ Himself will send us to perdition, should we fail in your formula for salvation. Your claim of such knowledge rings false—it is YOUR interpretation, not Catholics. YOUR interpretation has no standing in Catholic personal life, in Catholic salvation, in Catholic love and worship of the Savior.
And that is the biggest thing: the overweening pride of protestants; “We have salvation, na-na-na-na-boo-boo. God said, it, Catholics are going to hell.”
Give me a freaking break. Whem He said, “Except ye become as a little child,” He wasn’t talking about being a schoolyard tattletale, know-it-all or bully.
The excesses and emotionalism of protestant language on this thread just appall me. Cherry-picking verses out of context leaves me unimpressed. Nit-picking and parsing translated single words from red-lettered text is just ridiculous.
God loves all of us. He sent His Son to die on the cross for the sins of ALL of us. He asks that we put Him first in love, and our neighbor second. He says if we keep His commandments, the world will know we are His. And He says, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”
Christ Himself commands me, that if I love Him, I must love you, FTD, but nowhere did He say I have to like you.
The King James translation is not a translation at all. It’s a mini sermon stuffed into the space where Romans 11:6 should be.
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.