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.
Quix really appreciates your prayerful concern.
He’s very touched.
Prove it. First, define "pray."
You are a Catholic through and through. May God be with you on your journey.
I understand your disbelief in people believing this nonsense. You and Old Reggie pointed out it's all based on a legend. None of it is supported by Scripture.
However, for them they are taught to never question or disagree with their religious authorities. They bow down to them. They kiss the big guy's ring. They call them father. They even believe the clerics have the power to command God to do what they want.
take it up with PJ it's his entryIt is correct for anyone who has studied history;
are you ignorant of history ?
I practice anti-gibberishism.
It does not.
We may not have always agreed, but he was never a troll.
I always thought it was nice, his posts were so distinctive if I didn't want to read them they were easy to spot and skip.
It could have been—but it wasn’t. It was specifically Mary, “whom all generations will call blessed.”
We do not believe this as what “could have been” but what actually was.
Your bible has been redacted.
Ooops. Well, I’ve restored his account.
Thanks,
Jim
Bible-believing Christians ask Mary and the saints to pray for them. It happens all the time. They are called Catholics.
Protestantism!
But the man-made pagan fables that you create are not in the Holy Word of G-d.
The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. The woman fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.She gave birth to a son whom the dragon was waiting to devour at the moment of birth, but the child was snatched up to heaven, and the woman fled the dragon. Sounds pretty clear to me, if you are trying to interpret this in any way literally. If you want to argue there's a 33-year time period when the dragon was distracted from his mission to devour the child at the moment of birth, you have pretty much abandoned the pretense of it being a literal or historical story -- which was my point.
The Bible teaches that all the elect are God's children. But not Mary's children. But even if you accept the teaching that we are all Mary's children, that is clearly allegorical, not historical, and lends further credence to the idea that the story is not a literal story with Mary being a Queen with a 12-starred crown.
I'm sorry as to the rest. Are you saying that Catholics believe that Mary sprung wings after Jesus' birth and flew into the dessert for 42 months? I've never heard a Catholic express that view to me, so I presumed they didn't believe that was an historical fact.
You may have misunderstood what I meant by story. Daniel, as with many books of the Bible, contain many stories, some of which are texts of historical documentation, and others which are teachings, and others which are prophesies, or warnings, or pictures painted with words.
My point is that if you are in the middle of one type of story, you can't lift individual sentences out of the story and claim that the sentence is historical, while the next sentence must be just imagery.
Mary’s lineage was important, and so was Joseph’s, for many reasons, most importantly to fulfill God’s promise about the lineage of David. And I do not think there were any who could have taken her place. If she had refused, what then? If she had been unworthy, what then? I just do not think there were a large number of maidens who could trace their lineage back to David, unbroken. Just any old maiden would not do, to fulfill the prophecy.
God’s intervention in her birth was miraculous, to fulfill His purpose. Just my opinion, of course. Don’t take it for Catholic teaching, unless it agrees with the Church.
Done and done.
Hate is beneath us all, yet on it rolls apace.
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.