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.
For example the Catholic Encyclopedia:
On account of its diffusion alone the hellenizing Jews and early Christians , copies of the Septuagint were multiplied; and as might be expected, many changes, deliberate as well as involuntary, crept in. The necessity of restoring the text as far as possible to its pristine purity was felt. The following is a brief account of the attempted corrections:
Catholic Encyclopedia - The Septuagint - Critical corrections of Origen, Lucian, and Hesychius
There has been no proof whatsoever that a single pristine copy of the Septuagint ever existed, let alone one which was written in 72 days.
Yes, but he goes far off into error in trying to convey it.
Where do we go for a pristine NT or OT? The textual apparatus in my Gk NT is pretty impressive.
On the other hand you probably have seen the frequently made charge that the Catholic Church insists that salvation is available only to those "...subject to the Roman Pontiff."
And...the Catholic Church uses poetic license to explain how it doesn't really mean what it says.
"We declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302).
The "legendary" Septuagint bounced from pillar to post for many hundreds of years and wasn't accepted as Canon until the Council of Trent..
God knows those who are truly His. If a person truly knows Christ, they will have love in their hearts. Anyone can claim to be saved, but as I said, God knows their hearts. Many of those never had love in their own lives. God’s grace is even sufficient for them and He will show them the way if they let Him. Yes, true Christians are always under attack. I’d say from the moment of their conversion.
No, knowing Jesus is NOT a get out of jail free card. It always involves repentance from besetting sins (we all have them), asking for forgiveness from Him, allowing Him to cleanse us. It is a process. We are saved, yes, but He has to remove a lot of stuff inside of us that prevents us from being all we can be in Christ.
Of course we have to keep love in our hearts and I believe most do, but again, how many people who have finally found the Lord have so much baggage in their lives that they can’t love right away? God has to continually show them those areas where they need His cleansing power.
Repentance is also necessary. the Holy Spirit shows us our sinful ways. It’s up to us to repent and ask God to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Read your Bible faithfully, as well. In it is the truth we need to avoid deception. It is a revelatory book. God will reveal His truth to His children.
Amen, ROE! This vision didn’t smack of authenticity at all.
Thank you, dear mgist. We don’t have to hate eachother because we disagree. Bless you.
I was just being sarcastic, MD.
I would suggest, dear brother, that they are not saved because they failed the initial test of John 3:16.
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Others, having met that test, failed to keep his commandments to so serious a degree as to compromise their own salvation: what we know as mortal sin.
Very good post. Even the land needs a rest if we are to produce good fruit, vegetables, etc. Isn’t there something in the OT about resting land for seven years? No wonder our land is depleted of needed minerals, etc.
That's just bizarre. The 73 books of the Bible weren't declared as accepted as Canon until the Council of Trent. But the Vulgate (dating to approximately AD 405) included 73 books plus three books in an additional Apocrypha.
Great post, John.
I said He is IN the Reformed, not that He needed reforming.
That's some fancy mind reading there.
He preached ONLY to the Nation of Israel, and the Elders of Israel.
Really? Even in Rome?
His audiences are named specifically in Acts chapters 2 through 6.
Does Mark indicate the list in those chapters of Acts are exhaustive?
Exactly so, and that is what I mean to say. Those things laid out by God as being best for Man can always be found to be truly and exactly that. I believe the establishment of the Kingdom will return us to those ordinances, as it should be, IMHO, even now.
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.