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 suspect some have missed the sore thumb in their eye, too. LOL.
Thanks for your many encouragements.
Do you imagine you can find a Catholic Answers article which addresses the same verse in those "other" Bible versions?
And I've also learned that in a pathological environment or situation, particularly when alcohol or drug abuse is involved, the person who points out the proverbial elephant in the living room is often called a cry-baby, or trouble-maker.
Or is delusional. Imagining what is not there.
>>the celebrations over my FREEPER death appear to be premature.<<
Is that really fair Quix? People here kept you in their prayers including me. Did it do any good to say a hurtful thing like this?
I’m on a lot of Ping lists. I didn’t see anyone celebrating your “vacation”. But no matter what, I will keep you and your family in my prayers. If you would prefer that I don’t, then you can PM me.
I’m only about 20% or maybe 25-30% of my way through tabulating the first month chosen for analysis.
I don’t know if you mean “without any one group dominating over the others” in all respects for any reason in any way
or
‘merely’ no systemic stacked deck unfittingly allowing or unfittingly supporting or encouraging one group to dominate over the others.
My preliminary guesstimate is that one group will come out 60-85% dominating the Rel Forum. To me, 60% is not a big deal. Though, if we consider that there are 3-5 significant (by numbers) religious clubs routinely represented hereon, then 60% may be outrageous in some sense.
I suppose it might meet some sort of ideal to have a near equal number of posts by every represented group. But I doubt that’s your objective nor would it be mine.
I think a more reasonable objective is to remove systemic stacked deck features which have demonstrably tended to support one group having an undue, unfitting advantage over the others. On that score, in spite of all the dust and smoke in the air, I think you are doing a masterful and doggedly slowly effective job. I can’t imagine how anyone would do any better at reaching such a goal.
Herding cats is a nightmare. Training cats is about as difficult. Possible but a very long term project akin to teaching pigeons to play ping pong—only MORE difficult than that.
Below got so long, I think I’m going to cut it and start it’s own thread with it.
Thanks tons for all you model; all you tirelessly do; all you wisely sort out; all you teach us in a variety of ways.
LOL
Actually, the volume of posts - whether by article or word count - does not directly correspond to the demographics of Freeper membership. Nor should it. Some minority confessions have a pressing need to state clearly what they believe without being overwhelmed by the majority which obviously disagrees. Everyone should have a voice on the Religion Forum - whether on prayer, devotional, caucus, ecumenic or open threads.
Post #512
My only comment in response to your description of your experiences in the Philippines is that you should be ashamed of yourself for spreading your heresies in the land where my father came from.
FYI the Office of the Inquisition did exist in the Philippines.
For instance, at least once a month there is a 1000+ post Protestant vs. Catholic debate thread on Mary at least once a month. Peter and the Papacy is done at least once every six weeks, the Eucharist and Purgatory are done every two to three months and generally these debates will also have a simultaneous "companion" thread (i.e. the Catholic or Protestant "response" to the opposing view).
Lately we have seen a rise in Mormon/polygamy threads, but those will probably start waning pretty soon, unless Mitt Romney is McCain's running mate, in which case they will come back.
From time to time there is also an internal Protestant debate, but I haven't noticed any in a while.
So, if I had to guess, 90% of the threads/posts are either Protestant vs. Catholic, Mormon vs. everyone or prayer/caucus/devotional.
In the event there is any idiot lurking on this site who doesn't recognize my post was entirely facetious would you be kind enough to inform them so. Thanks.
naturally you have scripture to back up your contention? but more likely just dogma. teachings like this one come from the Zoarastorian (read pagan)tradition and have no place in the church! you know the ones God repeatedly told the Israelites to kill or the ones that end up taking them into captivity.
Mormons make-up approximately 2% of the general population, even by their own inflated numbers.
They are certainly getting more than fair representation on FR, as are their opposition.
I’m sorry, that would be me wouldn’t it?
I’m slow sometimes.
I agree and that's the Catholic position with regards to the "worship" of Mary and the Saints and the worship of God. I think it's also important to note that the exact same word "proskyneo" is used in both passages of Revelation. This therefore indicates that the word itself has different meanings in Scripture.
No Christian must ever fall down to worship before the feet of his fellowservants, his brothers and sisters in Christ, prophets and angels. He must worship God alone.
Christ however according to His own will has said that He will make those of the synagogue of Satan to worship before the feet of those He loves.
Here, while we were agreeing above, now seem to fall into disagreement again, for reasons I cannot fathom. You just indicated above that you can see the difference between Rev 3:9's "worship" and Rev 22:8's "worship", (that is, a matter of the heart), but yet right above, you seem to repeat the same mantra that "no one should worship anyone but God alone [by] worshipping at the feet of his fellow servants". However, that's exactly what occurred in Rev 3:9!
The men in Rev 3:9 were forced by God (Jesus) to worship (proskeyneo, which is where we get the term "prostration" from) "at the feet" of other men.
Of course it was God who forced some men to worship others, however that's a side issue. The issue is, since we know God is all-good and thus can never sin Himself, much less partake in sin, this also means He would never force men to do something sinful. IOW, it's ridiculous to say that God would actively promote sin, or cause men to sin, or, more precisely, cause men to commit blasphemy (and here, I'm not talking about the men doing the worshipping in 3:9, I'm talking about the men receiving it). IOW, if the men in Rev 3:9 were receiving worship unworthily, or, receiving worship due to God alone, then they themselves would be sinning by participating in such activity, participating by their willingness to receive the worship.
So we therefore must conclude that the form of worship in Rev 3:9 is perfectly permissible by God, because at no time, even in our future, could God ever promote sin, or cause someone to sin. Therefore, that form of "worship", which we Catholics would call either dulia or hyperdulia, is also acceptable in God's eyes, since we know at some point in the future (or in the past, depending on how one interprets that passage, but eschatological considerations aren't relevant here) God will/has force(d) men to worship at the feet of other men.
I guess one can take the hardline stance and say, "Well, I don't believe that there's ever a time that one should show honor to other men (by bowing down to them) ever, unless God specifically creates such a time, as in Rev 3:9". But again, that's a non-sequitor as it completely ignores the Command to "honor thy father and mother". Even beyond that consideration, it gets into ridiculousness if one insists that the simple, physical act of "bowing down" to another is somehow making that person a god. It doesn't, because, just as you yourself said above, it's a "matter of will", NOT the physical act itself that makes something "worship due to God alone".
The Catholic Caucuses are posted mostly late at night whereas the LDS Devotionals are posted during the day. And currently the "everything" browse intermingles Religion Forum posts with News/Activism.
Therefore we have been getting many, many News/Activism posters - even oldtimers - wandering onto the Religion Forum shocked and complaining that the site is overrun by Mormons. That of course is not true.
In terms of "open" thread heat v light ratio, the ex-[pick a confession] threads burn the hottest. But in terms of longevity, the Catholic v. Protestant debate (by definition) will never end.
You can always find heated intra-Protestant debates by looking for threads about dispensationalism and end times prophesy.
Thank you very much Jim and we all are still praying daily for your recovery.
Baron still says “Purr”.
He got his first bath today. (He found the litter box can be fun to roll in) My arm is a bloody mess!
But his “mommy” held him and kissed him so he didn’t feel so bad!
I think the FReeper fascination with Mormonism came when Mitt Romney was emerging as a strong candidate, it kind of tapered off and then the situation in Texas came along. If nothing else happens and if Mitt is not McCain’s running mate, it will go back to the way it was.
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.