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.
What I’ve been taught is that it represents the nation Israel in the end times.
It is the Roman church that has been creating pagan fablesSorry I did not mean you personally.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua
since it's inception at Nicea under Constantine.
Hmm, I don’t believe that’s what I said, P. Are you putting words in my mouth, sir????
Joya just translated.
Thanks for your kind words.
BTW, as you might gather, I have a sizeable list of aversions to a lot of stuff in the Roman edifice.
However, I also have a very strong bias about supporting folks in whatever they earnestly and honestly feel God is having them do—as long as it’s remotely Biblical.
I also fiercely believe that individual believers in all Christian groups and congregations will be drawn out and together the closer we get to Christ’s return.
What that drawing out and togetherness will look like, I don’t know. But I suspect it will be case by case operations and activities contingent on local things according to God’s priorities. And, I think it will entail folks who PUT GOD FIRST ABOVE ALL ELSE charatibly, generously and and sacrificially loving one another and the hurting world around about them.
I think it will involved a markedly intensified majoring in majors and minoring in minors on the part of all such following God above ALL ELSE.
I also wish to restate . . . I believe that EVERY Christian club of every flavor and label
As well as every congregation . . .
is to some degree plagued with idolaatry, blasphemy, UnBiblical traditions of man etc. Some outrageously so in quantity and depth of crud. Some less so.
Wherever one looks in Christianity, the church is a mess. The RC edifice is no exception regardless of what folks with blinders and broken mirrors contend. Every Protty denomination is also a similar mess with a different mixture of specifics in every club and congregation.
Human nature has not changed. And RELIGION vs RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD as HIGHEST PRIORITY has ALWAYS made the worst of human nature—WORSE. It does NOT matter what the label on the Christian club/RELIGION, is.
Much of the hazard of RELIGION, to me, virtually always involves
FORM
ABOVE Biblical, Godly
SUBSTANCE.
And ALL HUMANS ARE MASTER ARTISTS at rationalizing in their own minds, to their own mirrors and to all listeners
That THEIR particular case demosntrates that
THEIR FORM = GODLY SUBSTANCE
when overwhelmingly often, the opposite is truer.
May God’s Holy Spirit guide you wholesale in all your doings.
BTW, I find your anti-infanticide website masterful and a blessing to see. Congrats.
Oh, I’d be interested in what you thought of Jesse Du Plantis’ DVDs/book/CD’s on
CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE GOD KIND
about his 5 earth hours spent in Heaven. He was reared a Roman Catholic. He’s also a rather humorous Louisiana Cajun.
God’s best to you.
Oh, buzz off.
The road runs both ways on these threads, tiki.
You don't see anything wrong with that interpretation?
What is the unbelieving nation Israel doing in heaven?
May I ask who interpreted that scripture in that way? I thought each protestant could interpret it for him/herself, with the help of prayer and the Holy Spirit....?
Seeing no such thing, I asked you to point out what part of Acts 1 you think were not historical, and this is your response?
I have presented a simple hypothesis -- that it is wrong to interpret parts of clearly allegorical stories as being literal historical fact.
You suggested Acts 1 showed me wrong. It should be trivial for you to quote a verse out of Acts 1 that you believe is an allegorical, not factual, verse.
My hypothesis is not all that hard to argue against. There are stories in the bible that have historical basis, but which some then interpret as having allegorical meaning as well. If we had one we could discuss, it might be fun to see how we each interpret the scripture, to see if it matches how we each interpreted Romans 12.
Maybe the problem is that I've completely misunderstood what your argument was about in Revelations 12. I thought you were arguing that the part about Mary being queen was historical, while the rest was allegorical -- although later you implied I was wrong to interpret Mary having wings as allegorical, or maybe that her stay in the desert for 42 months was supposed to be an historical fact.
But maybe you were claiming that Revelations 12 was a prophesy about a future time, and that in that future time, Mary will be a Queen. Of course, in that case the birth in Revelations 12 wouldn't be the birth of Jesus (which already happened).
But frankly, I am going to just give up on trying to figure out what your argument is. You keep claiming I am wrong without presenting any evidence, and now that you suggested a chapter that doesn't prove your point you won't tell me what verse you were refering to.
I didn't come here to win an argument, and so I bid you a fond farewell.
It obviously isn’t to convert us because how can them repeating lies about our faith convert us.
If I wanted to convert a Methodist to Catholicism, I sure wouldn’t tell them that Methodists believe some God-awful, stupid stuff. I mean, they are Methodist, they know what they believe and me telling them lies isn’t likely to make them want to become Catholic.
I would tell them of the fullness of the faith, the encounters with Jesus through the sacraments, the wonderful intimacy of Jesus in the Eucharist. I would tell them how our faith is alive and new and ancient too.
It really was. Robert Duvall is one of the finest actors in Hollywood. The others were good, too. I loved Broken Trail. Did you see him in that?
Pretty funny. thanks.
Because israel is G-d's Chosen People.
A lot of people have, especially those who study eschatology. Google it.
Well said.
Thanks tons for your kind words.
Some seem to think that my distinctive posting style is . . . some sort of odd, perversely aberrant, self-embellishing, something-or-orherizing affectation.
It’s not. It’s just being the me the best that I’ve learned to be me operating the best I know how with the existential thrownness The Lord has cast me as and cast me into.
But it has sure enabled me to be my own best Rorschach.
And to watch the fun God has had with THAT function! LOL.
Complacency is a pretty deadly thing. It’s a lot more deadly than hate. At least hate is not luke-warm.
But, to me, a lot of the “hate” labeling hereon is a perverse political manipulation designed to coerce the Forum into granting one particular RELIGIOUS CLUB more or less exclusive sanction protecting their unique sensibilities, biases, preferences and thin-skins.
And, I find it more than a little hypocritical. Protties cannot dare even hint slightly that they know anything about any motivations of the other side. Yet the other side virtually gleefully with great fanfare, dust throwing and neon lights seemingly exalts in labeling the heart motivations of a long list of Prottys as “hate.”
What a duplicitous double standard. I can’t believe God is very amused with that.
I’m learning that “hate,” in that case, means anything they are even slightly uncomfotable with . . . anything that even slightly annoys their sensibilities.
Welllll whoop T do.
What is so hard to figure out about the statement "Find the Old Testament Scriptures Peter is referencing in Acts 1?"
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.