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.
Paul was not speaking of a persons eternal salvation in Phil.2:12, but his spiritual growth.
The Christian is commanded to 'work out' his faith, that is grow in faith and so that it can be seen by men (Ja.2).
We should do so with fear and trembling, for there is a Judgement Seat in which the Christian will be judged for his works on earth (1Cor.3:13, 2Cor.5:10-11)
The Lord spoke of having the light that is in us shine forth that men might see your good works and glorify your Father which is heaven (Matthew 5:15).
Our salvation is in us in the Persons of the Holy Trinity (Jn.17, 2Cor.6:16), the believer is sealed unto the day of Redemption (Eph.4:30) and Predestined to be conformed to the image of the Son (Rom.8:29) and nothing can separate us from the love of the Father (Rom.8:38-39)
Salvation is an event, not a process.
Sanctification is a process, but one grows because one IS saved, not TO BE saved or to STAY saved
If you are placing your confidence in anything other than the shed Blood of Christ for your eternal salvation, you have nullified grace and are not saved, since you are saved by grace and not works, else grace is no longer grace. (Rom.4)
That still makes TWO different Gospels, only one is the true one, either faith plus works or faith alone.
Protestants overlay the Gospel with the errors sola scriptura and sola fide.
No, Protestants preach the true Gospel (sola fide) because of sola scriptura.
So, you admit your Gospel is the combination of scripture and tradition, not just scripture.
Yes, Scripture AND Tradition. It's not a dichotomy, there is no conflict.
Ofcourse we believe otherwise, that is why you don't preach sola fide, you have to go to extra biblical sources to justify your faith-works salvation. (Mk.7:7-9)
I don't decide that, the Scriptures do.
[ ...and that is due to the fact that Catholicism teaches another Gosepl...]
Catholicism teaches the Gospel of Christ.
Not according to the scriptures.
[ ...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.
It is the Gospel of the grace of God and the only Gospel by which men can be saved. (Rom.1:16)
Yes, I stand corrected, I misunderstood what you had written, I did not read the verse closely and see that it was not the King James translation.
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.
Fine, you stand on that 'rock' and I will stand on the Rock of Christ (1Cor.10:4) and let us each see where we spend eternity (1Pe.2:7-8)
I see faith that produces love, which keeps God's commandments (Rom.13:10)
1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.
10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
Thank you for your personal interpretation of Scripture.
It won't matter what you call yourself if you aren't truly saved.
NASB-But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace
NIV-And if by grace, then it is no longer by works, if it were grace would no longer be grace
NKJ-And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace.
It is the D.R. that is inserting a theological opinion to offset what the verse actually teaches, that there were saved Jews who were saved by grace without works.(vs.5)
Thank you for that excellent post!
Because they thought Christ was talking about literally eating His flesh and drinking His Blood-which He wasn't!
He was speaking of faith and using 'eating' as a metaphor.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Matthew 4: 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Dt 8:3 Luke 4:4
Perhaps you would be interested in this article.
CHURCH
The Greek word ekklesia means assembly, or a gathering of called-out ones. It would be used in any Greek translation of the Old Testament for the Hebrew word kahal (from which latter we have our English word, call). Ekklesia occurs in the Greek New Testament 115 times (36 in plural), and is always translated “church” except in Acts 19:32, 39, 41 (assembly).
Kahal (Hebrew) is used:
(1) of Israel as a People called out from the rest of the nations (Genesis 28:3);
(2) of the tribal council of Simeon and Levi, those called out from each tribe (Genesis 49:6);
(3) of an assembly of Israelites called out for worship or any other purpose (Deuteronomy 18:16; 31:30. Joshua 8:35. Judges 21:8);
(4) any assembly of worshippers as a congregation (Psalm 22:22, 25. Ekklesia in Matthew 16:18; (18:17. 1Corinthians 14:19, 35, etc.);
(5) the equivalent ekklesia of separate assemblies in different localities (Acts 5:11; 8:3. 1 Corinthians 4:17, etc.);
(6) of the guild or “union” of Ephesian craftsmen (Acts 19:32, 41), and verse 39 (the lawful assembly).
[The special Pauline usage of ekklesia, which differs from all these. Other assemblies consisted of called-out ones from Jews, or from Gentiles (Acts 18:22), but this new body is of called-out ones from both.]
Our (Anglo-Saxon; Scottish) English word “church” (“kirk”; Kurion) has an equally varied usage. It is used
(1) of any congregation;
(2) of a particular (denominational) church (e.g. Church of England, Church of Rome, or Presbyterian Church of America, etc);
(3) of the ministry of a church;
(4) of the building in which the congregation assembles;
(5) of Church as distinct from Chapel;
(6) of the church as distinct from the world;
(7) and lastly, it is used in the Pauline sense, of the body of Christ.
It is of profound importance to distinguish the usage of the word in each case, else we may be reading “the church in the wilderness” (Acts 7) into the Prison Epistles, although we are expressly told that there is neither Jew nor Gentile in the “church which is His body”. And when our Lord said “On this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18), those who heard His words could not connect them with the “mystery” which was “hid in God” and had not then been made known to the sons of men. Confusion follows our reading what refers to Israel in the past or the future into the present dispensation.
The word where qualified by other terms occurs thus:
(1) Church of God (Acts 20:28. 1 Corinthians 1:2; 10:32; 11:16 [plural], 22; 15:9. 2 Corinthians 1:1; Galatians 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 2:14 [plural]; 2 Thessalonians 1:4 [plural] 1 Timothy 3:5, 15 [church of the living God]).
(2) Churches of Christ (Romans 16:16).
(3) Church in ... house (Romans 16:5. 1 Corinthians 16:19. Colossians 4:15. Philemon 2).
(4) Churches of the Gentiles (Romans 16:4).
(5) Churches of Galatia (1 Corinthians 16:1; Galatians 1:2); Of Asia (1 Corinthians 16:19); Of Macedonia (2 Corinthians 8:1); Of Judaea (Galatians 1:22); Of the Laodiceans (Colossians 4:16); Of the Thessalonians (1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:1).
the following was written in 1894 in London, England, and appeared in THINGS TO COME, A JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE
_________________________________________
THE LORD’S BRETHREN
According to Matt 13:55, the Lord had four brothers (i.e., half-brothers, as we say), James, Joses, Simon and Judas. He had at least three sisters also - “and His sisters, are they not all with us?” Had there been but two, the word all would have been both.
The Lord is called Mary’s “firstborn” (Matt 1:25 and Luke 2:7), and the natural inference is that Mary had other children. The [Greek] word prototokos is used only in these two passages and in Rom 8:29; Col 1:15,18; Heb 1:6; 11.28; 12.23 (pl); Rev 1:5, so that the meaning is easily ascertained. Had He been her only son, the word would have been [Greek] monogenes, which occurs in Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38, of human parentage; and of the Lord, as the only begotten of the Father, in John 1:14,18; 3:16,18; I John 4:9. In Heb 11:17 it is used of Isaac, Abraham’s only son according to the promise.
In Psalm 69, a Psalm with many predictive allusions to the Lord’s earthly life, verse 8 reads, “I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children”. The Gospel history records His brethren in association with His mother. After the miracle at Cana, which they probably witnessed, we are told that “He went down to Capernaum, He, and His mother, and His brethren, and His disciples” (John 2:12). Later on they exhibit a spirit of opposition or jealousy, for while He is speaking to the people, His brethren, accompanied by His mother, sought Him, apparently to hinder His work (Matt 12:46, 47; Mark 3:31, 32; Luke 8:19, 20). In Mark 3:21 we read, “When His friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on Him; for they said, He is beside Himself.
The expression “His friends” (could be used of “kinsmen”) is [Greek] hoi par autou, “those beside Him “, and it denotes a relationship so close as to possibly identify them with the “brethren” of v. 31. Again (John 7:3-10), they showed lack of sympathy with His work, and the reason is given in v. 5, “For neither did His brethren believe in Him”.
They are not seen again till, after His resurrection, they are gathered in the upper room with the apostles, and with His mother and theirs (Acts 1:14). Their unbelief had gone. James had become a servant to the Lord Jesus Christ (James 1:1), through the appearance to him of the risen Saviour (I Cor 15:7), and, shortly, is a “pillar” of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 12:17; 15:13-21; 21:18; Gal 1:19; 2:9,12).
It was James (Note, not Peter) who gave the final “sentence” with regard to how to instruct the new Gentile believers in other cities concerning circumcision.
The other brethren seem to have joined in the witness by itinerating; see I Cor 9:5.
The natural meaning of the term “His brethren”, in the Scripture record, would never have been challenged, but for the desire, when corruption crept into the churches (Acts 20:29, 30), of raising Mary from the position of “handmaid of the Lord” (Luke 1:38) to the exalted one of [Greek] Theotokos, mother of God, whence it was an easy step to investing her with divine honours, as being herself a goddess. And thus the way was cleared for identifying her with the great goddess of Paganism, who is the mother of a divine son, and who is yet a virgin, a deity best known by the appellation she bore in Egypt, Isis, the mother of Horus. So it was put forth that Mary had no children other than the Lord, and that His brethren and sisters were either cousins, the children of Mary, the wife of Cleophas. [ (2008) Or, as we have heard from Catholics lately, “Joseph’s children from an earlier marriage!”]
Those who maintained the former opinion asserted that Joseph was an old man when he married Mary. Of this there is not the least hint in the Gospel records. If he had older children, the right of the Lord Jesus to the throne of David would be invalidated, for the two genealogies in Matt. 1 and Luke 3 show that the regal rights were united in Joseph and Mary (See genealogies in earlier lessons).
With reference to Jerome’s “cousin” theory, it may be stated that the word “brother” is used in Scripture, (1) in the sense of blood-relationship, as children of the same parent or parents; (2) in the wider sense of descent from a common ancestor, e.g. Acts 7:23,25, where Abraham is the forefather; (3) in a still wider signification of fellow-man (Matt 7:3-5; 18:15); (4) to express spiritual relationship (Matt 23:8; 28:10; Acts 9:17; Rom 8:29; Heb 2:11). In the passages where His brethren are referred to, viz. Matt 12:46,47; 13:55; Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19; John 7:3,5,10; Acts 1:14; I Cor. 9:5; Gal 1:19, only the first meaning can apply.
Had they been cousins, the term would have been sungenes which is used in Mark 6:4; Luke 1:36,58; 2:44; 14:12; 21:16; John 18:26; Acts 10:24; Rom 9:3; 16:7,11,21, and is translated “kin”, “kinsman” or “kinsfolk”, except in Luke 1:36, 58, where it is rendered “cousin”. The Scriptures distinguish “kinsman” from “brother”; see Luke 14:12; 21:16. Only in Rom 9:3 are the two words in apposition, and there “brother” is used in the sense of fellow-Israelite (No.2). “Brother”, therefore, when used in N.T. in any sense other than that of No.2 or of No.3, must be restricted to signification No.1.
Jesus said to his disciples: “You have heard that it was said, You shall not commit adultery. But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away.
It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into Gehenna. “It was also said, Whoever divorces his wife must give her a bill of divorce. But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
You wrote:
“1. I don’t consider the Roman Edifice “Christ’s Church” any MORE than I consider The First Baptist of Hootenholler “Christ’s Church.””
What you consider is largely imaterial since you have already proven that your considerations amount to little in this regard. Share them, keep them to yourself, the result is the same.
“2. Methinks there’s a lot of slippin N sliden about the list.”
The list itself is a lot of slippin’. It is a bogus list.
“3. Macabee’s prayers for the dead justifies the RC edifice’s? LOL! ROTFLOL! GTTM!”
Now you’re slipping. Where did I claim that the prayers of the Maccabees justify the “edifice” of the Catholic Church? I didn’t. I, CORRECTLY, pointed out that prayers for the dead EXISTED among Jews before Christ’s incarnation, and long BEFORE 300 among Christians. You, however, have now created a straw man out of what I said because you can’t refute what I said. Thanks for the tacit admission of defeat. Get used to it.
“What other Pre-Christian stuff is going to be used to justify all manner of silliness on the part of the political RELIGIOUS power-mongering committees in Rome?”
Jews are pre-Christian just like the Old Testament is pre-Christian (i.e. it still worth citing since they were the Chosen People). Again, thanks for tacitly admitting you can’t argue the point itself, but instead must now put yourself in the strange position of saying what the Jews believed simply should be ignored.
“I repent and will endeavor to be more kosher next time . . . at least about the facts!”
This sister in the Lord of yours might need to talk to me too. :) But I already know the facts. I’m not catty. I’m just rude. I can even say that with a smile. LOL!
You wrote:
“One can also hear tones of what was spoken to Copernicus and Galileo as well...”
What exactly was spoken to Copernicus and Galileo? You see, Copernicus never got in truoble but apparently you think otherwise. Also, Galileo, if your lament is going to be that he was “spoken to” could be said to have gotten in trouble for denying scripture as it was understood in his day and definitely for what we would call today preaching without a license. I think you know less than you realize. Don’t bring up history unless you back it up with SOMETHING.
When the Bible explains what the Gospel is, it defines it as the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. So, I would say Catholicism does preach the same Gospel.
Thanks, but keep your hands to yourself.
(I HATE it when they do that thing that makes me scratch the air with my back leg -- SO embarrassing!)
Also, while I appreciate the "rational — some of the time" thing, don't say it too loudly. I have a reputation to maintain here.
Could you do me favor? I'll growl and you pretend to be afraid, okay?
It would really help.
And now for the moment of faux-rationality:
As Aslan says to Jill in The Silver Chair, we could not call Him unless He were calling us.
Merely to seek Him is a blessing and a grace. To try to say something that isn't completely bogus about Him is also a blessing. (To succeed is a miracle!)
Our "rote prayers out of a book" begin every day with, "Lord, open my lips — And my mouth will proclaim your praise." (and because we are feelthy, papistickle, AND stuporstishus we make s little cross over our mouths with our thumbs.)(And for extra credit, which Psalm is that from?)
To me this is an excellent theological drama or sermon or something. If I am going to read my "rote prayers out of a book" or address God in any way or talk or think about Him and not totally and immediately crash and burn, it will because of Him and His favor acting through me.
Out there in the weird world, one of the great moments in life is when a group of LEOs look at each other and decide, "Okay, let's do it," knowing that in a minute we're all going to hurt a little, some of us maybe a lot, and we're going to look stupid and get all dirty and sweaty, and the whole time we're man-handling this particular wacko, we have to be all nice and respectful and not forget to call him "sir", and at the end of it, when he's charged with assaulting a chunk of LEOs he'll probably be acquitted because it's our word against his, and he's a fine upstanding criminal while we are just evil Depiddies, who are all macho and violent and like guns and hurting people, or we wouldn't have the job of pinning a nice handy target on our chests before we go to work.
That is, fellowship in the face of a difficult task is a great joy and gift. (Whine alert!) I wish we could view ourselves not as opponents but as comrades who are trying our hardest to speak the truth about God and, at least what it all looks like from here, in hopes that we will give Him praise and makes His name great among the Gentiles.
The Lord has done great things for us, and we are glad indeed. Shall we then show our gladness by making the shades of the Roman emperors slap their heads when they realize they could have saved a lot on the whole lion budget if they had just put us in the arena and let us tear each other apart?
Okay, that's it
/ Faux-rationality off.
Saint Anthony, I've lost my mind. Any chance of your interceding for me to find it?
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.