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.
***Please don’t quote Apologetic sites, whether acknowledged or not. Try some unbiased sources please.***
I like Scripture. Scripture is good, although it’s biased. Perhaps I should avoid it when posting to you.
Let’s see. The Catechism. That’s good, although it’s biased. Perhaps I should avoid it when posting to you.
The Church Fathers. Ah, but they’re biased as well.
If you would send to me the vetted list of sources that are approved by your august self, I could then not make the mistake of causing royal heartburn to your august self.
***Peter was the only one who answered correctly. He was made the steward of the Lord.
And your “Pope” was one among the crowd at the Council of Jersulamen, headed by “Alpha-Pope” James.***
I see. And how many times and in what context is your alpha pope mentioned in the Bible? I believe that he was head of the church in Jerusalem. Peter wound up in Rome, as did Paul. I believe that you have posted that you consider this nonsense, but I’ll have Travelocity email their itineraries over as soon as possible.
In fact, I don't believe this is "official" teaching of the Catholic Church. I think the claim rests solely on the line of Bishops.
You could "look up more info" if you wish but I don't think it will make you happy when you discover how many years passed before the "Papacy" (primacy) was invented.
***As the object of the society was the propagation and strengthening of the Catholic faith everywhere, the Jesuits naturally endeavored to counteract the spread of Protestantism . They became the main instruments of the Counter-Reformation ***
Thank you for confirming that the Jesuits, already in existance, were then directed to another task - that of countering Protestantism. You really are a wonderful God-send to us all.
***Are they related to the bigotted antiProtty’s?***
I believe that they are seventh cousins twice removed on their heretic’s side.
***I must have missed something. Are you suggesting we dig into the lives and beliefs of the Popes? Are you sure?***
Some of them are a tad distasteful, but dig away. My main point was that the religious inventions of the children of the Reformation tended to reflect their creators.
***I noticed a bunch of verses from the Apoplectic Books.***
The statement was made that none of the Deuterocanonical verse was to be found in the NT.
The statement, of course, is wrong.
***No government based . . .
Oh, right . . . not ased on the Roman political clique’s power-mongering committee’s Johnny-come-lately presumptions and biases about what would suit their political governmental ends, coffers and CONTROL FREQUE schemes best—several hundred years after the fact.
THAT government based.
Yeah, avoiding that clique’s fantasies and legends and trumped up interpretations of even the weather would be wise.***
Sit, children, sit. Are you comfortable? Then we’ll begin.
The King James Bible.
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html has some useful nuggets.
One of the first things done by the new king was the calling of the Hampton Court Conference in January of 1604 “for the hearing, and for the determining, things pretended to be amiss in the church.” Here were assembled bishops, clergymen, and professors, along with four Puritan divines, to consider the complaints of the Puritans. Although Bible revision was not on the agenda, the Puritan president of Corpus Christi College, John Reynolds, “moved his Majesty, that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reigns of Henry the eighth, and Edward the sixth, were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the Original.”
The king rejoined that he:
“Could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that, of all, that of Geneva is the worst. I wish some special pains were taken for an uniform translation, which should be done by he best learned men in both Universities, then reviewed by the Bishops, presented to the Privy Council, lastly ratified by the Royal authority, to be read in the whole Church, and none other.”
Accordingly, a resolution came forth:
“That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek; and this to be set out and printed, without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches of England in time of divine service.”
The next step was the actual selection of the men who were to perform the work. In July of 1604, James wrote to Bishop Bancroft that he had “appointed certain learned men, to the number of four and fifty, for the translating of the Bible.” These men were the best biblical scholars and linguists of their day. In the preface to their completed work it is further stated that “there were many chosen, that were greater in other men’s eyes than in their own, and that sought the truth rather than their own praise. Again, they came or were thought to come to the work, learned, not to learn.” Other men were sought out, according to James, “so that our said intended translation may have the help and furtherance of all our principal learned men within this our kingdom.”
The Westminster Confession of Faith
I am indebted to http://www.opc.org/preface.html for the following:
In 1643, during a period of civil war, the English “Long Parliament” (under the control of Presbyterian Puritans) convened an Assembly of Divines (mostly Puritan ministers, including a few influential Scottish commissioners) at Westminster Abbey in London. Their task was to advise Parliament on how to bring the Church of England into greater conformity with the Church of Scotland and the Continental Reformed churches. The Westminster Assembly produced documents on doctrine, church government, and worship that have largely defined Presbyterianism down to this day. These documents included a Confession of Faith (1646), a Larger Catechism (1647), and a Shorter Catechism (1647), often collectively called “the Westminster standards.”
So you see, children, the Parliament of England, not content with the damage to Christianity done by the KJV, commissioned, bought, staffed with the King’s men, and brought forth a work by bureaucrats and called the Westminster Confession of Faith and the two Catechisms (conceivably because those with weak stomachs could only stand so much and a Shorter Catechism would be easier to take).
Government I said, and government I mean. All the railing that people did against England then and foreign governments now and they lap up foreign government documents and call them holy. Disgusting.
***Okay. I knew about going to the non-jurors for consecration. What they tell us was that it was largely because the C of E wasn’t going to consecrate anybody who wouldn’t swear allegiance to the crown.***
Certainly that part is true. But just imagine ol’ Sam headed over there hat in hand and they spurned him. He had to head on over to the second raters and beg them for their help.
***I would hesitate to say TEC followed a straight path into chaos. There was a Calvinist/high Church divide and the deist wing was in there pitching too. But it was unbridled “broad church liberalism that brought them to the point where a prominent rector could say that the Creed was a pretty piece of archaic ecclesiastical poetry.***
“Yes, Prime Minister” has a wonderful episode in which the rather pathetic Prime Minister has to pick a new Bishop of the C of E. For our more ignorant listeners, the Head of the Church of England is the Monarch of England (who in the past had commissioned not only the KJV, but the Westminster Confession and the two Catechisms). In it was revealed that societal position was of overriding importance, as was a belief in Marxism. Belief in God was looked at as a drawback to the candidates.
***I really think the rot took hold at Lambeth in 1930 when the CofE and the Anglican Communion went for Artificial Birth Control. In 46 years their ordaining women. And I just read the Paul Moore (Bp of NY in 1972) had a homosexual lover most of his married life. he was strongly in favor of the ordination of women and ordained a practicing lesbian.***
I believe that Lambeth pretty well sounded the death knell, but the seeds were sown centuries ago.
Since the entire concept of the Papacy is a fiction the time between "replacements" is irrelevant.
***It’s refreshing when you post your own stuff. It’s amusingly incoherent.***
Perhaps increasing the lithium dosage might help. It might help when you actually start putting dates together in a timeline and find out what one is actually saying and how the claims all relate.
***I do think it would signal the dissoloution of a company/team if no replacement was named for 2-4 years.***
You do? Based upon what? Your vast executive experience? The dice? The chicken guts?
The problem is a confusion of tactile apostolic succession with the succession of the papacy. If the apostolic succession is broken we have an ecclesiological problem. If we have a gap in people occupying the chair of St. Peter, we have no problem at all as far as I can see.
The statement, of course, is wrong.
Yes, yours is. Completely wrong.
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.