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.
Yes, if they don't like the answers they get, they need to stop asking the questions, because they are going to get the same answer from Christians over and over again, faith and faith alone in the saving work of Christ saves the lost sinner.
Gosh, that isn’t from the Bible! It sounds like just another person enamoured with his own opinion.
Are you ignoring me? Will you answer the questions?
Quite a site you’ve found, although inaccurate in almost every fashion. You’d think, though, amidst the hysterical claims of the Pope being the antiChrist, they’d at least have an up to date picture in place.
How can you focus your hate properly if you’ve got the picture wrong?
Why not show us the passage that claims sola scriptura? And the one that says sola fides.
I don’t think that that request could be clearer.
Why not show us the passage that claims sola scriptura? And the one that says sola fides.
I don’t think that that request could be clearer.
Please note we are comparing (NAB) Psalms 69:9 with John 7:5.
What I am getting at is that it is either Sola Scriptura and it is obvious in the Bible, and if it is, then show me where it is so that I might believe it.
You seem to want it both ways, Sola Scriptura and tradition of men, mostly since the 16th century, while disparaging Catholics for admitting that they accept Scripture as inspired and important but that Tradition from the time of the Apostle’s is somehow bogus. Tradition cannot contradict the Bible, BTW, because the Bible was written on
Tradition and canonized by comparing it to Tradition to see if it met all the criteria.
Many Protestants rely on Luther and Calvin as if they were God, Himself speaking and naysay the words of the Apostles and the early Christians who actually lived what we only read about.
As far as I can see, from the Sola Scriptura crowd everything spoken outside the Bible to support the faith is bogus and therefore so are Luther, Calvin, that Scottish guy, Spurgeon and any other Protestant that is quoted because it can’t meet the definition of Scripture alone.
If you accept Scripture alone then you should be able to quote strictly from the Bible to defend any of your beliefs and it will be clear to anyone who reads it that it agrees with your assessment of it.
“Only” is exclusive of everyone and everything, so if you say you believe that then show it and argue solely from the Bible. When you take a verse from the Bible and interprete it by your own understanding you are adding “your own understanding” and that doesn’t meet the criteria. Then it would be Scripture alone, plus opinion. It is either Scripture alone or it isn’t, it is as simple as that.
No one here is a mindreader and can not be expected to understand your "they" is limited to a few.
In any event it was a hate filled rant directed to "they".
We aren’t allowed to make it personal.
It is indeed quite interesting.
Ps 69:
Let those who wait for you, LORD of hosts, not be shamed through me. Let those who seek you, God of Israel, not be disgraced through me
8
For your sake I bear insult, shame covers my face.
9
I have become an outcast to my kin, a stranger to my mother’s children.
10
5 Because zeal for your house consumes me, I am scorned by those who scorn you.
11
I have wept and fasted, but this led only to scorn.
Well, the context is that this is the life that David was leading at the moment. Some of the things follow through, yet not all do. Psalms says that he is alienated from his mother’s sons.
John 7:
3
So his brothers 2 said to him, “Leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples also may see the works you are doing.
4
No one works in secret if he wants to be known publicly. If you do these things, manifest yourself to the world.”
5
For his brothers did not believe in him.
There have been numerous discussions about adelphos etc., but look at it this way. There is nothing here about Jesus being alienated from anyone here except the Jews of Judea who were trying to kill him.
Therefore there is not a complete one-for-one comparison. Good try, though.
When you publish fiction you really should identify it as such.
Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady's death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ's Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.
The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P. G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:
Pious Fiction
HO! That’s really a hoot. RC’s just don’t like it when their sacred cows are discovered and brought out into the open. It’s GOD who WANTS us to evangelize, yes, even to evangelize Catholics who are going down the wrong road with so many heresies.
Boy, truer words were never spoken.
Yep, and a lot of it is on the RC side of the river.
Amazing. Mary sits higher on her throne than Jesus does on His, I see. Where did this come from?
The only reason your post is humorous is that you seem to think that I rely on Sola Scriptura, I don’t.
It is the Sola Scriptura crowd who can’t seem to support Scripture alone from...well, Scripture alone.
Better to ask for help.
Hint: Ignore help from one who doesn't recognize the difference between John 7 and John 19.
AMEN, DM, AMEN.
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.