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.
Predestination is such a tricky concept, so outside our comfort zone, that the Bible cautions us not to be overly-speculative of the things of God. God does, however, reveal Himself to be, as Mary's tag reminds us, "in control."
THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH prefaces its understanding of predestination with the words...
I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3] II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions;[4] yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.[5] III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels[6] are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.[7] IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.[8] V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, has chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory,[9] out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto;[10] and all to the praise of His glorious grace.[11] VI. As God has appointed the elect unto glory, so has He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto.[12] Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ,[13] are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified,[14] and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation.[15] Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.[16] VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praised of His glorious justice.[17] VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care,[18] that men, attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election.[19] So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God;[20] and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel.[21]
Of God's Eternal Decree
I'm in total accord with Mary and her righteous tag -- "God is STILL in control."
Do you believe that, Petronski? Or is this another case of "Kind of, but...?"
***And here, MarkBsnr, you also are “making it personal” by reading the other poster’s mind.***
I withdraw that statement. Thank you.
Mark
***IMPRESSIVE
paragragh
. . . in a manner of speaking.***
Mea culpa. I apologized in a later post and cleaned it up. But thanks for bringing to my attention in case I hadn’t noticed it.
Much appreciate the confirmation of the late dates of some of the political affirmations of some of the Mary nonsense.
Great post. Thanks.
God gave us all free will.
Have been pondering this point.
Just doesn’t hold water, for me.
Prottys are aware of a lot of legends about the early church. They remain, to us, legends.
Prottys are aware of a variety of interpretations of Scripture—many of which various Christian clubs differ on. For many of us . . . we await God to sort it out conclusively. We don’t presume to declare emphatically that which God did not choose to exercise emphatic precision about in His Word.
It still is inescapable to me that at a variety of points in time down to the modern era, the Roman political power-mongering committees found it advantageous to declare various legends or even mere ideas . . . to FROM THAT POINT be DOGMA for the faithful to believe and follow. All the while pretending that the dogma had been whole, complete and homogeneous from 400 years before the edifice began.
That just doesn’t hold a molecule of water, for me.
By the way, interesting how you quote “traditions of men.”
Certainly welcome.
But honestly, I’m merely in a mirthful teasing mood today.
***Much appreciate the confirmation of the late dates of some of the political affirmations of some of the Mary nonsense***
The Mary nonsense started in the 1700s, I believe, when 4th and 5th generation Reformers and Restorationists started morphing their theologies considerably far afield from Luther, Calvin and Zwingli.
The Church has the authority; generation after generation of illigitimate theological children do not.
Gen 1:
27
God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.
28
God blessed them, saying: “Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.
God meant for us to fill the earth with humans, not exotic theologies.
That's not the decree of God, that's the decree of Jean Cauvin, mouthed by the dark and cruel god Cauvin created in his own image.
1. The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit. 2. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. 3. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration. 4. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord. 5. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church. 6. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places. 7. The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection...
Etc...
Ah, don’t I wish. It’s NOT impossible!
Indeed. I only care what Christ thinks, not the Councils nor some of our brethren who disagree so vehemently with us.
Thank you. I’m reading the book of Acts now, actually. I have copied this onto my computer. Many thanks!
I see that organic unity isn't as a big a deal, but it seems to me that separating is a kind of a pre-emptive act and all that's left if you don't have something that serves as a doctrinal supreme tribunal. Different emphasis, same unwillingness to "abide" with theological controversy? Maybe?
All the while pretending that the dogma had been whole, complete and homogeneous from 400 years before the edifice began.
Um, there you go again? (Blessed Ronald, ora pro nobis, heh heh heh?)
I tried to address the homogeneity thing. I have a quote from a Pope admitting corruption and I've tried to adduce councils and "Definitions" in what I take to be their true context, which is largely as a response to some kinks in the "enfolding" process.
So I'm suggesting that homogeneity is only a claim we make in a highly austere and abstract way.
I mean, we all agree Jesus is "God the son of God". Then somebody says, Well, because He is a SOn he is "after" somehow, so "there was when He did not exist." and somebody else says, "Oh yeah? If 'ther was when he did not exist' ANd if there's only one God, then you mean He isn't God." and next thing you know there are riots in the streets.
The "Jesus is God the Son of God" is not threatened, it remains the same. But how we explicate (another word for 'unfold') it can direct our thought towards the Jehovah's Witnesses line of country or to the challenge of thinking of a "same" which includes "distinction" (a philosophical brain-buster.) So it's EITHER fissiparate or go to a tribunal and abide by their verdict.
As far as the "FROM THAT POINT ON" aspect goes: I think we have to consider that the reasons the Wesleyans have a separate building from the UMC (or whatever) is that somebody said, "Our way or get your own real estate!"
Now, personally, I don't lie awake at night worrying about the Assumption of the BVM. And it was settled when I was, what, 2 years old? I didn't toddle into the 'rents bedroom and say, "Mommy, I can't sleep, I want to know what the Catholics believe about Mary and heaven, ... and there's a Baptist under my bed or maybe a Charismatic ...."
But evidently some people got cranked up about it.
Now IF you can momentarily wrap your protesting mind around the concept that in and for such men as those guys in dresses God, having had plenty of chance to practice on bumbling Saint Peter, could effectively direct their deliberations so that what they come up with is somehow reliable, in principle at least, then especially if the finer issues of Marian dogma do not erode your stomach lining, your reaction can be, "Okay, Cool, Mary now enjoys all that is promised to all the elect. That's neat. What was your bid, two no? Okay, three clubs."
Now to the wonderment and befuddlement of my family and friends, I have a pretty intense Mary thing going on. So to me it's more like, REALLY! WOW! that's amazingly cool AND it confirms what I've been thinking about time and blessedness anyway. I'm totally jiggy with this!"
Maybe to an onlooker it seems like a kind of control or restriction, but to a devotee of "haute vulgarization" Or "how to do theology for people who don't do theology," I feel like a Mad Dawg who just had an article belonging to the missing argument waved under my nose and then felt the leash being taken off. I can RUN (and bark!)
Are my sentences long enough for you? I've read Latin, I can make them REALLY long!
Thank you! I appreciate your telling me this as I’m now reading Acts. It will be helpful. M
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.