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 explain the following to me:
Douay Rheims Psalms 68 (69 in most Bibles) Introduction
"Salvum me fac, Deus. Christ in his passion declareth the greatness of his sufferings, and the malice of his persecutors the Jews; and foretelleth their reprobation."
(Establishes Psalm 68 (DR) recognizes the passage is about Jesus.)
Psalms 69: (NAB)
[9] I have become an outcast to my kin, a stranger to my mother's children.
Footnote 1: [Psalm 69] A lament complaining of suffering in language both metaphorical (Psalm 69:2-3 ; 15-16 the waters of chaos) and literal (Psalm 69:4, 5, 9, 11-13, exhaustion, alienation from family and community, false accusation). In the second part the psalmist prays with special emphasis that the enemies be punished for all to see (Psalm 69:23-29 ). Despite the pain, the psalmist does not lose hope that all be set right, and promises public praise (Psalm 69:30-36 ). The psalm, which depicts the suffering of the innocent just person vividly, is cited often by the New Testament especially in the passion accounts, e.g., Psalm 69:5 in John 15:25 ; Psalm 69:22 in Mark 15:23 , 36 and parallels and in John 19:29 . The psalm prays not so much for personal vengeance as for public vindication of God's justice. There was, at this time, no belief in an afterlife where such vindication could take place. Redress had to take place now, in the sight of all.
Please note Psalms 69:9 is to be taken literally.
John 7:
[5] For his brothers did not believe in him.
Catholic Bibles (which cannot be in error) establishes Psalms 69 concerns Christ and "my mothers children".
John 7:5 concerns His brothers who did not believe in Him.
His mothers children?
***ANYTHING to keep from understanding what Catholics actually say or mean by what they say!***
Let’s go beyond that. Have you noticed the amount of correction simply related to Paul that some of their most noisy required.
How can they extend the Gospel when they don’t understand it. Eunuchs, many of them.
Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
soooooooooooooooo sweet!
Did the sweetness lessons come in white hanky packaging and delivery?
Are there a couple dozen more lessons to come or is it 3 dozen?
Does one trade in special Post Toasties boxtops with a special magicsterical seal or is it unused indulgences that get a special discount for the sweetness lessons?
Some of us ignurunt Pruttys can’t kept setch things vury strait.
That would explain the preference of calumny, mockery, cartoons, dire threats, and the rest over reasoned argument.
No wonder you guys are so averse to the very thought of works!
LOL.
Cute.
Clever reply.
. . . in spots . . .
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.
No that's not it at all. There is the issue of content. There is doctrine in them thar names!!! There is RC doctrine about the person and powers of Mary in them thar names!!! There have been dozens and dozens of threads about the name "Holy Mother of God" as you well know. I know that you know that protties have a big problem with the doctrine there and also with the very idea of a title not given in the bible.
So take the next one, "Most honored of virgins; ". This contains that whole ever virgin doctrine or at least reminds one of it. It also implies that she is the most honored when there is no evidence of that. There are other virgins in the bible that seem to be more honored to me. John the Baptist for one.
Chosen daughter of the: Chosen to be the mother of the Lord, OK. Is that the intent?
Mother of Christ: She is called "the mother of my Lord" in the bible and only that. But to start calling her the mother of everything that the Lord is, that's the exact same complaint we have about the "mother of God".
Glory of the Holy Spirit: Now this one is bordering on blaspheming the Holy spirit, in fact it might well be just that. Are you aware of a title given to the Lord that sounds quite a bit like this? If not than shame on you for not knowing the bible better, if so then shame on you for not being more sensitive to the meanings of names in the bible.
Would it help if I cut back on the chocolate?
Look I'm still dealing with Dominic coming back from the dead to lead the Inquisition. I can't be expected to be brilliant in ALL my posts.
You guys don't READ de Montfort, you go fishing (or cherry-picking) in him, if you touch him at all. The guy is a delightful madman. I really enjoy reading him. I could wish that he had thought that one day Protestants would be looking over his shoulder and enjoying attacks of the vapors every time he gets outrageous, but I've come to see that the openly professed MO is to attack some Dogma until it is explained and then to attack some hypothetical Catholics and to claim to know what is in their hearts and then to blame the deviations of those Catholics from Orthodoxy on the Church while disclaiming all responsibility for the multiplicity of deviations within the non-Catholic sphere.
This is not about debate. This is not about truth. This is most certainly not about reason or charity. It is about attacking.
Let ME engage in some mind-reading here. I suspect that de Montfort doesn't give a hoot what contentious Protestants think of his works. He wasn't writing for them anyway. And he, being wiser than I, gave up long ago trying to present the truth to a group which didn't care about it, but cared only about attacking.
Me I'm going to go pray to the Gentile Lady, just as soon as I figure out who she is supposed to be.
***Finally! I have found the expert to explain “confusing Scripture.***
I will have to pass on this one and ask Kosta for his help.
***No wonder you guys are so averse to the very thought of works!***
No, they do a lot of them and we know them by it.
Yes, I can see that if you think Jesus comes in pieces, one Divine and one Human, and thus disagree that Mary is rightly called the Mother of God, if you make MORE of motherhood than either the biology of that time or the biology of our time makes of it, then you will object to theotokos.
And if you think that having God the Son of God in their house would just immediately make Mary and Joseph think of sex, then calling her the most honored Virgin would be problematic.
And if you think that John the Baptist is CERTAINLY higher than she, when the least in the Kingdom of heaven is greater than he, as I recall, evidently making light of her place not only at the Assumption, the Cross and the Pentecost, then those who take the other view would be a problem.
AND if you think the one in whom was conceived the Son of God by the Power of the Holy Spirit was not honored uniquely by that event and act, and that, at least in one way, that conception was the most amazing act ever wrought by the Holy Spirit, then calling her the Glory of the Holy Spirit would be a problem.
But the charge keeps shifting! Now it's blasphemy, not it's almost blasphemy (and how can somebody defend against "almost" a crime. It seems to me that "almost" guilty is innocent.) Now it's just praising her at all.
We think every saint is at least "a" glory of the Holy Spirit, BTW. We think the Lord is made glorious in His saints.
Both sides are convinced we are attacking evil in behalf of God.
. . .
I’m not expecting great changes on that score any time soon.
But I do believe we should have fun in the process.
Otherwise, we are just proving overweening idolatrous sensibilities, preferences, affections one way or another. Obsessively over the line TRUE BELIEVERS in anything or anyone but God ALONE are a hazard to themselves and others.
We are all silly rabbits looking through a glass darkly.
Of course, my arrows are more sanctified than those of the other side.
Welllll . . . SOME of them are BOUND to be!
LUB
Like I said, you have my sympathies, because I understand your position, even if you don't. You're making assertions and posing questions that can't be answered in support of your "character of God" thesis, but forgetting it is the thesis itself that needs to be proven, not speculative consequences IF the thesis were true.
In short, you are assuming what you need to prove, so your reasoning is invalid.
They complain that they don’t get answers from us. they get plenty of answers, they just don’t like, and actually reject, scriptural truth.
Ohhhhhhhhh?
Welllllllllll harumph.
OBVIOUSLY, the
White Hanky has spoken.
Bow and scrape; bow and scrape; bow and scrape.
NOT!
YUP.
Staw edifices demand straw windmills to tilt at . . . and straw dogs to bark at.
Because sado-evangelism is "Satanic" in the truest sense of the word. Its primary characteristic is accusing the brethren.
When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. John 19:26
I take great personal satisfaction in being one of the few people you will personally attack before you get your wits about you, and convert everything into “RCC, magicsterium, etc.” speak to game the forum rules.
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.