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.
Every once in a while a "know it all" (not you) will cause me to mischeviously ask that person to defend the "unbroken line of Popes". It is surprising how imaginative some of the answers can be.
"...and we've come all the way to Pope Benedict, and a pretty darn good pope he is."
History will be the judge of how good he is. I too think he is doing a good job. He certainly isn't "wishy washy" in his actions and words. I don't have to agree with what he says to admire his willingness to say what he believes.
Yeah, especially because imprimatur would pretty much be strictly Catholic.
Overkill
Oh, now THERE's a cogent, tightly reasoned, unassailable rebuttal.
I just went back and read the first one more thouroughly, I will post those paragraphs which contain the words Protestant, Protestants and Protestantism. If you actually read it you will know that he is talking about all non-Catholics, not just Protestants. So technically, it doesn’t count.
I’d read the other ones but I have a bunch of work to do today. I may do it later though.
It is no longer considered prudent or necessary to actively “proselytize” Protestants or the Orthodox, to say nothing of the Jews. The conciliar church thus demonstrates itself as defiant of the very purposes for which Our Lord shed His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and contemptuous of the missionary zeal for souls exhibited by Catholics from Pentecost Sunday to the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958.
The Devil and his minions seek to convince us that it is all right to make little concessions here and there to the spirit of the world and to show “other religions” that the Catholic Church has no “special claim” to make on them, that it is not necessary for infidels (such as the Jews and Mohammedans) and heretics (such as Protestants) and schismatics and heretics (such as the Orthodox) to convert to the true Faith to be saved. It is no one other than the devil himself who wants us to believe that one can be a Catholic while carrying around within us just a little bit of the infection of this world and its ephemeral allurements. It is the devil who wants us to believe that the “needs” of the “modern age” require us to refuse to seek with urgency the conversion of others to the Catholic Faith so as to be “sensitive” to the needs of name of religious “diversity” without blaspheming God or His holy martyrs.
Does this zeal for souls characterize or contradict the ethos of conciliarism? Anyone who can claim that the mandate given by Our Lord to the Apostles on Ascension Thursday can be changed is no “centrist” or “realist.” Anyone who can claim that there no longer remains an urgent necessity to convert Protestants and Jews and the Orthodox and Mohammedans and all others, including Hindus and Buddhists, to the true Faith is an enemy of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, a veritable blasphemer who contends that God and His truths are immutable and that His Holy Church is not the one and only means of human salvation.
The American Missions, from their very beginnings, attracted great numbers from the Society of Jesus. Jesuits were the early explorers of New France and given to it its first martyrs. “The history of their labors,” says a Protestant writer, “is connected with the origin of every celebrated town in the annals of French America: not a cape was turned, nor a river entered, but a Jesuit led the way.” While Fathers Jogues, de Brebeuf, and Lalemant shed their blood upon the shores of the St. Lawrence, Father Marquette in a bark canoe explored the course of the Mississippi as far as the Arkansas.
Who, precisely, did Roger Schutz, the Protestant syncretist who was placed in Heaven by Benedict XVI last year, make his confession to on a regular basis? Ah, I forgot. “Brother” Roger never converted. He is in Heaven, though. Why in the world should Father De Smet have left the comforts of Belgium if the Indians of North America could be saved without being converted to the true Church? Well, the answer, as readers of this site now, is that Father De Smet took seriously the consistent, defined, dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church concerning the necessity of seeking with urgency the conversion of souls to her maternal bosom. This teaching his well summarized in the words of Pope Eugene IV in the Papal Bull Cantate Domino, issued in 1441 during the Council of Florence:
Understanding the lies of Protestantism, which is no means of salvation whatsoever, Father De Smet sought to battle for souls against the heretical sects of Luther’s and Calvin’s and Cranmer’s and Wesley’s progeny, who were endeavoring to do the devil’s work by snatching the souls of the Indians for their own false religions:
Some things fall short of the mark.
This was one of them.
Peter didn’t actually show a great deal of faith until after the Resurrection, did he.
I see no hate sites. I see one guy. Being told that I am quibbling does not persaude me that I am wrong. It just shows that my question is avoided and that somebody disagrees with me.
To my way of thinking, if someone has a site and ONE article on it seems to be firmly against Catholicism, I don't consider that a hate site. I consider it a site with, quess what, an article by someone firmly against Catholicism.
And if it's not important that there are 4, why did YOU bring it up?
(Hubby is bustling around and I’m feeling quite guilty.)
Dontcha hate that. I, OTOH, had all these great intentions for today when my husband and son came in and said that they were taking their Father’s Day today.
I’m going to be spending the next 4 or 5 traipsing around the desert in 100 degree temperatures, I think I’d rather clean the toilets.
Have fun.
You must remember that when one’s own opinion is the only one that counts, they are always right.
You make grand assumptions Old Reggie.
Oops, sorry, my post wasn’t meant for you. Sorry. I agree with what you said.
Nobody. Do you?
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.