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.
To the contrary, "It is written" is a fine argument in defense of sola-scriptura. I suppose it's not a particularly broad defense, but the point it defends is both true and very good.
Show how Lamentation 2 models Luke 1:28-32 and the salutation of mary,than back it up with early Christian writings?
Be careful!I would rethink this,dear friend.
Zepaniah certainly models Luke 1:28-32
example
28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.- Luke 1: 28-30
Zephaniah 17 -The LORD your God is with you, he is mighty to save. He will take great delight in you, he will quiet you with his love, he will rejoice over you with singing." It s very clear to see how
“Show how Lamentation 2 models Luke 1:28-32 and the salutation of mary,than back it up with early Christian writings?”
Why back it up with early Christian writings?
If it is a type it is a type. You can’t pick and choose. If you are going to choose “daughter of Zion” as a type then look at all of the references, not just the one that butresses a particular favorite doctrine.
What is your denomination, or are you the personal church according to romer_1?
Much of what you wrote cannot be traced back to anything that resembles historical Christianity and even post reformation thought
New testament types are always superior .
It's that simple
I mean God moves through our prayers. If we want healing, we pray for it. If we are in a financial bind, we pray about that. If we have a relationship problem or a marital problem, we pray about that. He is faithful to act on our prayers. If we don’t pray, we can’t expect God to move. Now that doesn’t mean someone else can’t pray on our behalf if we don’t. And I’m not talking about prophetic things that He has ordained.
I think it’s a good idea to use two or three versions for studying.
I agree. I used to have a parallel with 4 versions.
That is perfectly true.
The point that I was trying to make is that people speak carelessly about spiritual things. If I say, "Prayer works," it would be silly to argue that those words proved that I thought God could be pushed around or controlled by the words I say.
If I understand it, Sola Scriptura amounts to: (1)If it isn't in the Bible you don't have to believe it to be saved. (2)If it can be proved from the Bible it's true.
I simply do not see how those two propositions can be derived from or be implied by our Lord's saying "It is written."
Certainly "It is written" is probably compatible with Sola Scriptura. It does not refute it. But I sure don't see how it implies it.
I haven’t read it. I don’t read much apologetic stuff. What do YOU think of it?
What reasoning? I'm having twilight zone experience here.
Yes, Jesus cited a few texts from what we now call the OT. Stipulated. No argument. And he said, "It is written." Again no disagreement.
I do not see how those two statements move necessarily to "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation."
That's from the "Articles of Religion" of 1801 of the "Protestant Episcopal Church in the United Sates of America".
Just to be clear, to say "A does not imply B," is not to make a statement about the truth of either A or B. B can be true whether or not A implies it.
Haven’t gotten it yet.
But he seems to be a well respected lay apologist for the RC’s. I just wondered what the crew hereon thought of him.
He’s an atny. Figures, I guess.
My impression from watching low these many years is that . . . the bulk of the RC’s . . . even hereon . . . are very very very skilled at being a moving target. The edifice is so complex with so many components and so many pronouncements over the years—even POST Vatican II—that even a formal Vatican magicsterical approved pronouncement can be found stating just about any position almost about any thing.
I haven’t convinced myself that it would be worth getting the book yet. But I was wondering if he was considered the least bit authoritative by the relevant powers that be. I don’t anticipate getting more than one such volume. So, IF I do, I’d want it to be the best one full of the most kosher pronouncements of the magicsterical with respect to the key differences between Evangelicals and RC’s.
I understand there’s also an Anthony Gilles who wrote FUNDAMENTALISM: WHAT EVERY [ROMAN] CATHOLIC NEEDS TO KNOW”
Is that better or worse? I don’t know.
Where are the rules for typological interpretation made? Are they found in the Bible itself? I’m asking about the rules, mind you, not just examples.
Certainly, take your time. It's no skin off of my nose.
What is your denomination, or are you the personal church according to romer_1?
I was raised (Dutch) Christian Reformed, though I am now Orthodox Presbyterian. I do not adhere closely to either, however, having leanings toward Pentecostal thought and Fundamentalism.
Much of what you wrote cannot be traced back to anything that resembles historical Christianity and even post reformation thought
It is my opinion that much of what Christianity has thought has been rendered incorrect by events which should be seen as revelation by the Church. What has been murky is becoming clearer, especially since WWII. In the light of that, much of what the Church has believed is certainly wrong. One example in particular, any form of Replacement theology. Israel IS, and that is a fact.
Not RC.
Are you saying you’re not RC?
Sorry.
That is a fair rendering, although I would add that other sources are acceptable, including tradition, though no source can trump the Scriptures.
I simply do not see how those two propositions can be derived from or be implied by our Lord's saying "It is written."
As the term has evolved here on this board, it is not that Jesus said "It is written", but that He always referenced Scriptures, and never referred to tradition, except in a derogatory sense. "It is written" is an abbreviation of that thought.
That being the case, it is difficult to convince one such as I that your (RCC) tradition is to be held in the esteem you desire, when our Lord, by His example, defies your position.
Since Christ confined himself to Scriptures when referencing history, referring to the canon of His day, we should do the same being careful not to add to what He said.
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.