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.
Misrepresentation is not a virtue.
= =
Are you sure?
I thought it was a Cardinal doctrine of the Royal Order of the White Hanky.
Obviously my error [slaps fingers].
What exactly was spoken to Copernicus and Galileo? You see, Copernicus never got in truoble but apparently you think otherwise.
Oh, no. Don't get me wrong. I know that there was no *official* proclamation against Copernicus, and would even grant that the most popular historical recording against him was from Luther. The RCC spoke mostly from silence, since Copernicus was a faithful Catholic. His observations were from a theoretical and mathematical position, and they had other fish to fry. Still, one cannot suppose, given the RCC's vehement stand thereafter, that Copernicus was not treated to the RCC view of things at the time.
[WRT] 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
Galileo, a mind easily on par with DaVinci, was another thing altogether- Being obnoxious and irreverent to those who opposed him was quite his natural style, and he stood very firmly upon his findings.
For one such as he to not once, but twice (some say four occasions, twice to be sure) recant his findings before an inquisitor certainly makes one wonder what threat was laid upon him. His confinement to house arrest, spent largely at his remote villa, and the suppression of his works, speaks loudly. Had he not been so famous and of such high regard, one doubts the final verdict would have been so kind.
FWIW, I do reject later rumors that his inquisitor had him blinded (his blindness in his final years was attributed by most to an infection), and any other sort of malady said to have been forced upon him by the Church of Rome, But history is history, after all. The RCC cannot stand on any ground but it's firm opposition to copernicism, and it's ill treatment of the one who proved heliocentrism without a shadow of a doubt- Historic evidence on the subject is without dispute.
I do not wish to tarry on this subject. and do not wish to send the thread off on a tangent, but in the face of your accusation, I felt I needed to produce a reply.
FRegards.
Maybe all RC/Protty threads must be done in 4 columns.
Prior RC statement; Prior Protty response; Current RC comment; Current Protty comment
Or else we need someone clever with graphics to map/chart the things . . . preferably in Technicolor with lots of arrows, circles, triangles, squares etc.
Great fun.
For those who think getting RELIGIOUS whities in a wad is fun! LOL.
One man hate crusade-4 Is not a site, it’s an article.
One man hate crusade-3 is the same article on a site which, upon a brief survey is revealed to have such other hateful things as the Magnificat in different languages.
One man hate crusade-2 is an article on Freemasonry, by the same guy who wrote the article in # and 4
One man hate crusade-1 is the same guy different article
The same guy is one several different sites. I don’t see how this is an answer to the question, which was about anti-Protestant sites, as distinct from anti-Protestant people.
Well, enjoy yourselves. I’m off for some adult conversation. Think I’ll read some of Benedict XVI’s stuff.
THANK YOU!!!
(It was tiki’s question. Anybody can get a web site.)
“...some adult conversation”...
I wish I could come along. :-)
No. not me.
Old Reggie purchased a special
PROTTY VIVID COLOR INDULGENCE—ROYAL ORDER OF RED version.
. . . for an undisclosed amount . . .
. . . . given my chronic short-sighted generosity, those interested can bet that such costs are miniscule compared to the fun provided.
However, other Prottys are protesting the whole idea and claiming that
VIVID COLOR INDULGENCES—ROYAL ORDER OF RED
must be called
VIVID CALVINIST COLOR CACHOPHANIES—ROYAL ORDER OF SCARLET
Still others are protesting THAT and insisting that Old Reggie is a Protty splintered in good standing and can post in the color of the Lord’s Blood any time The Spirit moves him.
If he decides that the latter proposition is the most saintly one, he can claim a refund quite easily. All he has to do is declare facing Jerusalem . . . or is it Geneva?
“I RECEIVE MY REFUND.”
“I RECEIVE MY REFUND.”
“I RECEIVE MY REFUND.”
“And shall spend it on purely holy hysterics.
[while jumping down, turning around and then raising his hands and shouting toward Jerusalem:
“HALLELUJAH! HALLELUJAH! HALLELUJAH!” and concluding with:
“Thanks to the UNPope for small favors. Amen.”
The miniscule sum is then automatically transferred to his Heavenly account and can be spent immediately via any spontaneously contrived enraptured Protty rituals.
But it has to be a FRESHLY CREATIVE and truly spontaneous ritual. Prottys are convinced Holy Spirit is offended by dry, dusty, and tired old !!!!TRADITIONS!!!!
There’s rumor that a special class of clerics are coalescing into a new order of UnJesuits to compile a list of all the heretofore spontaneous rituals and insure their being entered into a world wide web accessible database to insure that no happless Protty anywhere in the world is guilty of repeating a formerly performed pontifical prance.
It seems, like the poor, the bureaucracy, we always have with us.
Sigh.
I've read some of him, and the boy was BEGGING for confrontation. Pretty funny too.
Probably most famous regarding his temperament for calling his university contemporaries "expensive wine bottles full of urine" or something to that effect. Yes he had a fine twist of wit... :D
I mean, I think we all agree that that was not one of our finest hours and all
A bit of an understatement, all things considered... but in comparison with other "not finest hours", I am content with your description.
I don’t keep a record of such wrongs.
There have been a handful of RC’s over the years—including the last several monthsl—who’ve frequently said such things.
Sometimes it’s said with great specificity and absoluteness and sometimes it’s said in more generalized terms. But the impression has always been left with me that the dear soul saying such things believes it entirely and also believes that believing it is an important part of their faith.
It always has left me shaking my head in dismay.
I’m greatly relieved that such is not your perspective.
I see that you have lost count.
The first two are about the same individual. So your four hate crusades are really three. Upon further examination, will they become two, then one, then none?
***Such games can go on endlessly.***
We don’t think of the salvation of one’s soul as a game.
You wrote:
“Still, one cannot suppose, given the RCC’s vehement stand thereafter, that Copernicus was not treated to the RCC view of things at the time.”
1) What exactly was the Catholic view of things? I ask since the Church never had a de fide dogmatic teaching against heliocentrism.
2) You are wrong in any case since the chronolgy of events would make the possibility of Copernicus being “treated” to a view different than his own by the Church logically impossible. When his view was just becoming known, he was on his death bed. There was little or no time for controversy at the time.
“Galileo, a mind easily on par with DaVinci, was another thing altogether- Being obnoxious and irreverent to those who opposed him was quite his natural style, and he stood very firmly upon his findings.”
So what? How does any of that negate what I said?
“For one such as he to not once, but twice (some say four occasions, twice to be sure) recant his findings before an inquisitor certainly makes one wonder what threat was laid upon him.”
None.
“His confinement to house arrest, spent largely at his remote villa, and the suppression of his works, speaks loudly.”
Speaks loudly of what?
“Had he not been so famous and of such high regard, one doubts the final verdict would have been so kind.”
Why? His life was never in danger.
“FWIW, I do reject later rumors that his inquisitor had him blinded (his blindness in his final years was attributed by most to an infection), and any other sort of malady said to have been forced upon him by the Church of Rome, But history is history, after all.”
Looking through a primative telescope for years on end is not good for the eyes.
“The RCC cannot stand on any ground but it’s firm opposition to copernicism, and it’s ill treatment of the one who proved heliocentrism without a shadow of a doubt-Historic evidence on the subject is without dispute.”
Galileo did not prove heliocentrism nor could he. Newton is usually credited with having proven heliocentrism. The math knowledge necessary to prove it did not yet exist in Galileo’s day.
“I do not wish to tarry on this subject. and do not wish to send the thread off on a tangent, but in the face of your accusation, I felt I needed to produce a reply.”
I understand. I appreciate it.
***Maybe all RC/Protty threads must be done in 4 columns.***
Very inventive. Maybe we ought to bow to Christ instead and forego all the Protestant inventions.
Coulda fooled me! LOL.
***THANK YOU!!!***
You appear more than adequate to handle the peanut gallery; yet I will offer the little I can.
So am I staying with the tried and true, my Bible. If you read God’s Word (and there are books who also show you the Cults and what they practice), you will know who the cults are.
***“...some adult conversation”...
I wish I could come along. :-)***
It’s not about maturity. It’s about the juvenile fantasy of being able to construct one’s own theology based upon one’s whims. One constructs one’s god based upon the visage that one sees in the mirror.
The miracle of the Reformation.
No, just the ones in KJV bible, smile.
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.