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.
I am not confusing them, I am making that precise distinction. All the translations I mentioned are translations. The KJV is a protestant interpretation stuffed in where a translation should be. The effect is to add words to Scriptures...good luck with that.
Thank you for your personal interpretation of Scripture.
1Jn 5:13 refers back to 1Jn5:1-12, where **gasp** works are prescribed.
Brava! Brava! Bravissima!
Superbly stated, praise God!
What we Catholics do with the truth is, collectively, operate and worship in the Church founded by Christ, lead by His Vicar on earth, Pope Benedict XVI, successor to St. Peter.
I did not claim in 5016 that I had posted the KJV version of Rom 11:16. I was replying to a post that listed the KJV version of Rom 11:16. I replied with a faithful translation of Rom 11:16, in contrast to the overstuffed kielbasa that is KJV’s Rom 11:16.
It is not for you to decide if Catholics are save or not.
...and that is due to the fact that Catholicism teaches another Gosepl...
Catholicism teaches the Gospel of Christ.
...that rejects the Protestant view Justification by faith alone.
While protestants teach the Gospel of Luther, Calvin, et al. Sola fide is not biblical. It is a false tradition of vain men.
Matthew 5:43-48
:O)
***What vile “things”? ***
For example, one poster here called her a demon from the OT. Wander through the evangelical sites and see what she’s called.
***Those God directly touched and worked with such as Enoch or Elijah or Moses or Saul or David are all creations on par with Mary. Each fulfilled a role that God revealed, encouraged and blessed them with.***
Bearing the infant Jesus and being His mother for His entire life on Earth is no more than these men?
***Excuse us if some people start to scratch their heads at “the only one true Church” that assumes the arrogant position of speaking ex cathedra (”Formally” defined in the swift year of 1870 in the year of our Lord) and determining your eternal soul is is jeopardy because you question some legend that has nothing to do with salvation by the Cross.***
I will excuse you, certainly. But I am not your Judge.
***Excuse those who are God/Christ/Holy Spirit only that question your Church putting Mary on a higher pedestal than Enoch or Elijah or Moses or Saul or David or any other creation directly chosen by God to act in His will. ***
Ditto.
***Still looking for that verse/command which says your going to hell if you question who Jesus brings up to Heaven with their human earthly body. Also still looking for that Apostle/early Church father who ever tought about an assumption. ***
Scripture tells us what the role of the Church is.
http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/189/Ancient_Homily_on_Mary_s_Assumption____St._John_Damascene.html gives a Church Father homily on the Assumption.
I am keeping this post.
Thanks for saying it for me.
All that the negative proselytyzing has done for me is to solidify me in my Faith. For that re-affirmation of all that I believe, I thank God.
You complicate things. The formula:
God-breathed scriptures (all 73 books)
+ Holy-Spirit-inspired traditions
___________________________________________
= The Church founded by Christ
I thank God too.
You’re certainly entitled to make up your own history if you want.
I’ll stick with His Church, thanks anyway.
Yes, Scripture AND Tradition. It's not a dichotomy, there is no conflict.
***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” :)***
The concept of the Trinity wasn’t worked out by the Church for centuries either. Neither was the canon.
Either you accept the Church and its authority or else you don’t. Picking and choosing is verboten Scripturally.
Protestants overlay the Gospel with the errors sola scriptura and sola fide.
***What a list of lies from the pit!***
I was wondering when you’d get around to calling the Church of Jesus Christ satanic.
The father of lies likes useful idiots.
It wasn't meant to be at all. I didn't figure you would want to read thru a long expose from me, I'm sure you've read thru them on the James letter before.
Please just forget answering, obviously you are going to ascribe untrue motives to anything I have to say.
lol. I have a theology professor friend, he calls the freshman "my little foetuses"
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.