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.
GOODNESS ENAT!
Given your tilting at the supreme fantasy windmill of turning a pebble into a massive monnolith . . .
you may be rapidly joining to chorus of those of us honored by routine personal assaults hereon.
Congrats. Welcome aboard.
THANKFULLY
AND MERCIFULLY
That assertion is wholesale QUITE wrong.
. . . but then it would be quite wrong inserting virtually every other Christian org there, as well. Only congregations here and there and those temporarily have been very New Testament much at all . . . or very led of Holy Spirit much or long at all. I don’t know of any led by Holy Spirit over a LONG period of time.
My IQ was a gift of God.
His training of it was His Gift.
His conditioning of it was His Gift.
It is QUITE secure IN HIM.
And, in and of itself—regardless of it’s loftiness . . .
is but dross.
Nevertheless, that IS what the Scriptures command. "...be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you... 1 Peter 3:15."
But I did answer you to the best of my ability and, as I expected, you didn’t accept my answer.
I do accept your answer. It is yours, not mine. Accepting your answer is not the same as acknowledging its validity, though. Is that what you think acceptance is: agreement?
I’ve come to the conclusion that no matter what I say, you will find a way to insult and demean the answer.
I see serious flaws in that conclusion if it uses your "acceptance" standard as I understand it so far.
I didn’t intentionally change anything you said.
I have no doubt of that, but it does go back to what I referred to earlier with the subtle sins. Intentional or not, it does change the dynamic to make it easier for you to answer if the change is allowed. In that respect I should think your heart was taking the path of least resistance rather than overt deception. That you admit the change at all is a sign of Christian humility and fosters affection for you in my heart.
Your opinion of me really doesn’t matter that much. So, I would like it if you just don’t bother me anymore and I will try and do the same.
I'm sorry. I can't do that. As long as you see fit to demean my Church on open threads I can not do what you ask.
You don’t want to dialogue, you want to insult, demean, and degrade.
Nothing could be further from the truth, Mary. While some of the things I write may be unpleasant to read, non-carnal weapons used to the pulling down of strongholds usually are.
The part where "He cleanses us" but not really because you're only clean by the "magical formula" of grace.
Not to mention most born again Protestants today would be in jail for moral turpitude by reformation standards. They just don't have a very keen awareness of sin.
Mary, what did I write that was profane or sacrilegious that you would write such a thing?
Does this not presume there need be another "interpretive game in town?"
So did the Church have something so foundational wrong until the Reformers, out of their passion for scholarship, "discovered" a new interpretation?
UNMITIGATED HOGWASH.
BTW,
God instituted GRACE . . .
NOT
some militarily supported RC political RELIGIOUS power-mongering clique meeting in committee.
2Tim3:16 is all you cited, and it most definitely does not "refute the whole notion."
Do we have to go through the "puzzle analogy" again?
From where?
I KNOW! I KNOW! I KNOW!
From an institution qualified and accredited to grant a Master’s Degree in Theology!
Specifying it further could readily disclose his personal identity. He deserves his privacy as much as the rest of us do.
Yes, He did. I just wish you guys could access it.
I can't imagine reasoning any more specious than this.
The part about the Bible alone not being sufficient to live the Christian life.
GOD BLESSES PROTTYS WITH HIS GRACE
24/7
I didn’t realize there was so much ignorance about that.
He may disagree.
BTW, not that surprised about the quality of imaginations so chronically used to relying on an institution founded around 400 AD by
a militarily supported RELIGIOUS political power-mongering clique meeting in committee
for dreaming up an endless train of fantasized dogmas and off the wall Sciptural interpretations.
Mary, I realize you didn't like it, but do you understand what I wrote was neither profane nor sacrilegious, and therefore not blasphemy?
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. ... He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
2. There is more than sufficient Biblical justification for a very close identification of the written text with THE LIVING WORD CHRIST JESUS.
3. Such a brazen all-inclusive statement against the SUFFICIENCY of the Written text . . . and against such texts as:
HOWEVER, I suspect God takes a dim view of that pile of smelly White Hankies.
Throughout His Word, He affirms folks treating His Word as straight from His mouth with great blessedness.
He was fiercely harsh with the RELIGIOUS BUREAUCRATIC MAGICSTERICAL 2000 years ago which PRESUMED TO TELL GOD what GOD meant and how their mangling of His Word was more righteous than God was. That anyone would presume to fantasize that He'd be more kindly to the RC versions of doing the same thing is beyond irrational.
God Have Mercy.
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.