Yeah, it's sooooo terrible. Us ignorunt Prottys only gut cents enuff tuh be ETERNALLY SAVED BY GRACE THROUGH THE BLOOD OF JESUS ALONE! PRAISE GAWD AND HALLELUJAH!
PRAISE THE LAWD AND PASS THE ROOT BEER!
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.
Your own Bible has saved, not being saved. You even reject your own Bible!
AMEN, ftd!!!
Any lie to preserve men's ability to save themselves, and to confuse, blur and meld justification with sanctification.
God knows who are His, and by the grace of God, each of them one day knows it, too, when the Holy Spirit gives them new eyes and new ears and a new heart and a renewed mind and rebirths their fallen nature.
Christ on the cross is not just a suggestion; it's wiping the slate clean for all those who have been mercifully graced by God with faith alone in Christ alone.
Men are justified one time for all their sins by Christ on the cross; men are progressively sanctified for their entire lives by the indwelling Holy Spirit.
Yeah, it's sooooo terrible. Us ignorunt Prottys only gut cents enuff tuh be ETERNALLY SAVED BY GRACE THROUGH THE BLOOD OF JESUS ALONE! PRAISE GAWD AND HALLELUJAH!
PRAISE THE LAWD AND PASS THE ROOT BEER!
Acts 15:24 is saying that the new Christian Church does not require its members to keep to the Jewish law.
28-29 is saying that the new Christian Church does have rules and regulations that the members must follow.
Isn't he the one who led the Inquisition?
Nice comeback.
I express my gratitude to God and also the hope that I will be with Him forever and you post this.
So be it.
Sola Cauvin
Matthew 7:6
Faith by reason?
= = =
Noooooooooooooooo, NOT by a long shot . . .
—faith by irrational rubber histories
—faith by irrational rubber ‘Bible.’
—faith by irrational magicsterical power-mongering elitists committee
—faith by white hanky worship
—faith by fantasy
—faith by apparition
—faith by !!!!TRADITION!!!!
—faith by Pomp and Circumstance!
—faith by indulgences
—faith by extrapolation and inference
—faith by audacity
—. . .
They never got close to faith by reason . . . much, much less faith alone in Christ’s Blood.
***Faith by reason?***
By the authority of Christ.
Many RC’s are artists at
obscuring shreds of authentic faith in God Alone
by all manner of noise, trappings, idolatries, blaphemies, rationalizations, hogwash, magisterical rantings,
Sometimes, Prottys just don’t feel like getting out the magnifying glasses to find such shreds of authentic faith in an RC’s post.
It’s more fun to highlight the absurdities.
In other words . . .
if it
quacks like self-righteous arrogance,
waddles like self-righteous arrogance,
floats like self-righteous arrogance,
swims like self-righteous arrogance,
flys like self-righteous arrogance,
lays eggs like self-righteous arrogance,
loses feathers like self-righteous arrogance,
preens it’s feathers like self-righteous arrogance,
gobbles duckweed like self-righteous arrogance,
. . .
Some of us Prottys are lazy enough to not bother investigating further—we’ll just take the evidence and go on.
I think that giving lofty names to Mary is fine as long as they don't trespass into paying divine honors. It seemed to me that none of those names you listed gave divine honor to Mary, so I thought they were all innocuous.
I HAD thought there was something in the actual content of the names that you thought was wrong, but now I see, or I think I do, that you think the mere giving of honorifics is bad.
And that I just don't get. Unless your side is going to leap to the unsupported conclusion that by merely tolerating honoring the Mother of the Lord the Church is turning folks away from Christ, I can't see anything intrinsically wrong with 2,000 years of devotion churning out a few titles. And I know the difference between a King and a Queen in a patriarchal worldview, so I'm not flustered by calling Mary Queen of anything. She is, after all, the mother of the King, and that often gets one the courtesy of a royal title.
So I don't see what the problem is.
It's not so much my question. You put up the list and said it was an outrage or something, but didn't say what was outrageous about it.
CORRECTED:
By "authority" of the elitist, arrogant, militarily supported power mongering political committee called the RC magicsterical and all their bureaucratic hangers-on.
All we can do is keep trying to explain what The Gospel is and pray for them.
I think a clear case can be made that Mary really didn't understand who Jesus was until the resurrection. She was a good faithful mom who worried about her child, but if she knew Jesus was God incarnate why would she berate him when he stayed at the Temple. Why would she come with his step brothers to take him home after he started his ministry? IOW, she never displayed any extraordinary knowledge or abilities.
***Matthew 7:6***
And some of them have large, ungainly feet.
***It’s more fun to highlight the absurdities.***
I see. So you find it absurd and worthy only of mockery when I posted (to another poster):
And, by the Grace of God, I am a member of His Church. He has blessed me considerably, I can ask for no more except to be with Him forever.
The brightest angel must be very proud.
OOOOOOH! the big bad Inquisition! OOOOOOH! THERE's a word to frighten children with. If we find enough of them we wont' have to think at all!
From the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church:
The Inquisition properly so called came into being when in 1232 the Emperor Frederick II issued an edict for the whole Empire entrusting the hunting out of heretics to state officials. Thereupon Gregory IX, fearing Frederick's political ambitions claimed the office for the Church and appointed Papal Inquisitors.Saint Dominic died in 1221.
So much easier to calumniate the Church when we ignore the facts.
***quacks like self-righteous arrogance,
waddles like self-righteous arrogance,
floats like self-righteous arrogance,
swims like self-righteous arrogance,
flys like self-righteous arrogance,
lays eggs like self-righteous arrogance,
loses feathers like self-righteous arrogance,
preens it’s feathers like self-righteous arrogance,
gobbles duckweed like self-righteous arrogance,***
You are not as arrogant as some here, I’ll grant you that.
I have been told on this forum that mere capitalization of a proper noun equates to "bowing" to someone.
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.