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.
I’ve always believed he was speaking of end times Israel.
I love those verses in Job. They are magnificent. I also love singing the ‘new song’ unto the Lord.
I look at it this way . . .
There’s sufficient errors in the KJV that no one should fool themselves into glorying in the KJV . . . or even in considering it absolutely perfect while all other English translations are absolutely horrid. That’s just an oversimplification, exaggeration.
I love the KJV. But I can learn something from every translation. Holy Spirit is the One leading me into all truth.
God works through our prayers. Nothing happens without prayer. If we want God to move on our behalf, pray.
Regarding John, I recently read that John could have been a cousin or relative of Mary’s and Jesus’.
Were there not scrolls in Jewish Temples that were scriptures?
I agree with that. I used to love my old American Standard because it had agreat Bible Study on the bottom. Gotta look that up again.
I enjoy the Amplified.
And now the MESSAGE though many throw a fit at it and even Peterson himself says not to use it alone for Bible Study.
the Amplified is a bit annoying to me. I haven’t read the Message although I’ve heard others read scripture from it.
I read the New KJV because it’s one of the only Bibles they make with Large Print! LOL. And you can buy one for $10 in Sam’s Club. I like it fine.
I think Peterson achieved his goal of putting Scripture into English that matched the earthy, common people, vernacular flavor and tone of the original languages.
No small task.
I love how it has helped me tune into the Character and personality of God all the more intensely.
Yes, many, many, that they’ve pieced together.
You are correct re Rev. ch. 12. Genesis 37 identifies her as Israel.
Okay. If nothing happens without prayer, as you say, would you say "Prayer makes things happen," or "Prayer sometimes makes things happen."
(I'm assuming you don't really mean "nothing happens," right?"
I wouldn’t RELY on Peterson except for a very engaging opinion about the text. I do think it’s a great achievement. But I wouldn’t use it to settle a difference.
The KJV is in my bones and my memory.
It’s a good backdrop for reading most other translations.
As I noted . . . Peterson himself, in the preface, advises against using only THE MESSAGE for Bible Study.
BTW, What do you think of Karl Keating’s book
CATHOLICISM AND FUNDAMENTALISM
???
Maybe, we'd have to read it in context. It also could mean spiritual Israel, and I have even read some Jewish commentary where they say it refers to the Messiah, interestingly enough. But never to a single individual such as a Mary.
Okay, so we agree that Jesus’s saying “It is written,” doesn’t work as an argument to support Sola Scriptura.
ditto TO ALL THE RC STALWARTS . . .
What do y’all think of Karl Keating’s book:
Catholicism and Fundamentalism
???
however,
No. I don't buy into that reasoning at all.
Christ's persistent IT IS WRITTEN is VERY supportive of Sola Scriptura.
What OTHER authority did Christ cite MORE frequently—other than His constant dialog with DADDY?
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.