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 have read so often that they were put there to ward off demons that I no longer believe it. It just smacks of anti-papist myth to me. I DO get the artistic theme of the interior of the church representing heaven and the heavenly kingdom and some of the exterior representing the world in opposition. (I was in a lovely church in Freindship Marylans last fall and the ceiling was painted dark blue with stars! Wow!) But I wonder how many of the masons and stone-carvers really thought their gargoyles were efficacious in any way.
(In all it's disastrous self-rending, the Episcopal Church has done a wonderful thing in the "National Cathedtal" in DC and there are some very fine carvings there.)
As to mangling the serfs: Owing to my former, official, black-shirt wearing ministry, when people in my last parish had a problem with one of the priests inflicted upon us for a while, they would come to me. (Talk about being in an awkward position!) And I would urge them to remember that in the vast scheme of things priests are not that important. This guy preached the Love of God well enough. So that was good. And his being somewhat lacking in the diplomatic department did not interfere with his presiding at Mass. And there’s no requirement that anyone interact with him outside of that context. So let him be a jerk. Who cares?
But, yeah, some people get mangled. I remembered when a total south end of northward moving horse came by on a mission from the diocese to talk to us about our future. And it suddenly hit me, HE’s “in process” TOO. I need to be as patient with him as I would be with anybody else. There may be plenty of books about sanctity and all, but to the extent that any of us are granted sanctity it is through many repetitions of (a) being horse’s patootie; (b)realizing that we are being a horse’s patootie; (c) repenting; (d)rinsing; (e) repeating. (At least, that’s how I do it, except for the sanctity part that is .....)
I’m thinking that getting mangled is to some extent “the wrath of God” on people who want to do their walk in Christ by proxy. And we must confess that in all lines of work and the ordained ministry is no exception, we find people who eagerly enable dependency and immaturity — and THEY find plenty of “victims” who make a devil’s bargain in the hope that they will be allowed to remain asleep, dependent, and immature. In that connection, I am always a little amazed at the number of people at Mass who can’t wait to get out of the church as soon as possible. It’s like they’re saying, “Yeah, I’ll venture THIS close to the mountain, but I’m not going to let God touch me.”
= = = =
EXCELLENT POINTS.
Much the same in Protty turfs.
And, I agree that emphatic ‘over-staements,’ hyperbole, emotional emphases, . . . muddy things considerably.
I greatly appreciate your candor about the appearance of wanting to have things both ways.
The pontifical dust in the air; whining and wailing about how flawlessly perfectly infallibly wonderful the RC org is . . . generates a lot of incredulous teeth on edge amongst no few Prottys.
As a guide to thought and to the consideration of the piety of others, I offer this: An IQ of 100 is average. This ought to enter into our thinking when we listen to pious conversation. Some people are not gifted with vivid imaginations or great articulateness. Many cannot talk holding the big picture in one hand and the matter under consideration in the other.
I would not go to de Montfort for theology. For enthusiasm, yeah! Saturday in "formation" I was yapping about de Montfort and calling him "delightfully crazy", and one off the other novices, who is doing a degree in Patristics, cracked up and agreed.
Yesterday I was in the super-market and I was accosted by a boy with Down's Syndrome. He asked if he could try on my motor cycle helmet. I assured his mother that I did not think I had head lice and helped him put it on. He looked great. He got a real and valid, albeit small, piece of the whole deal of riding a motor cycle. I wouldn't expect him to be able to say with rigor what he experienced. But it was clearly important to him. He had an imagination. He was using and enjoying it.
Then there's the question of how to tease out what "human nature" is apart from sin. If I say, as I do, that Mary was fully human, I readily admit that I am not saying she is "usual". (The word "normal" is tricky here, because it has the prescriptive connotation of "norm".) "Normal" or "full" humans are unusual.
“We have this treasure in [I’m talkin’ about some KIND of] earthen vessels.”
INDEED, INDEED.
I think I understand your points and their reasonableness in your perspective.
Thanks.
I keep the screen names in a Word file for copying and pasting in when wanted.
I suspect that most of my cohorts would just as soon I didn’t bother them so much but are too kind to say so.
I still prefer to keep the family informed of my crazy doings.
They might just have a correction or a better idea.
as many as God allows...
I think it's pretty clear that these exaggerations all go back to "tradition". It's clear they are not found in Scripture. The Mary of Scripture is a good woman blessed by God because of His use of her in His plan for our salvation. She worried about her child, but never completely understood what was going on.
It is only when you go outside Scripture that Mary morphs into this "co-redeemer" that filters and magnifies prayers, snatches souls out of purgatory, and comes back to earth to give us messages from God.
BTW, what happened to the Angels God always used before? Did they get fired? :-)
nah - youre reading it with an eye lacking the requisite morning cup of starbucks LOL
the question is how full ? - you can be full of grace, but not completely full of grace - but thats splitting hairs and sleazily clintonesque....
I would challenge to ask though - can anything of less than complete grace be in the presence of God in Heaven ?
“We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous.” (1 John 2:1)
Doesn't seem from these Scriptures that God the Father, God the Son, nor God the Holy Spirit needs any help either hearing or answering our prayers.
“. . . there is one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Timothy 2:5)
Intercession and mediation need no handmaids or help meets. It is all handled in the Godhead for the believer.
Simply false.
If God couldn’t make Mary full of Grace, I fear for my own soul. I’d like to know some of the other things they don’t think God is capable of.
Quix: If I believe Christ . . . as I do . . . loving Mary is no MORE important than loving my enemies vis a vis Salvation etc.
Amen! Besides, how does one go about loving a dead person anyway??? I mean, we can miss dead people, we can have love in their memory because we knew them, and we can look forward to seeing them again, etc., but how does the Bible tell us to actively love a dead person today, especially one we have never met? Honor and love are different things. Perhaps this is part of that extra information that God absentmindedly forgot to put in His original revelation.
In addition, think of the implications we are being asked to accept. We are being told to expect that our salvation itself is DEPENDENT on loving departed Mary from the grave. Oh wait, my father told me that when he was born Mary had a grave, but that since then the Church has taken it away. :) But in any event, I think we need to know what the REAL rules are, not the incomplete ones in the Bible. If I now have to somehow figure out how to actively love a woman who left this earth 2,000 years ago, perhaps ALONG WITH loving God, are there any other people or things to which I owe something?
I think the Catholics would say that all the rituals they perform to gain their salvations (for themselves or others) are done with love for God, but this is a new requirement, to love someone ELSE in the supernatural realm (e.g. satan, demons, angels, or departed saints) who is NOT God. (???)
Have not had a chance to read it yet. If I ever do, I’ll let you know.
Kinda boggles the mind, huh? I’m sure Mary never thought all this would happen to her memory. Sigh.
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.