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.
>>>The atny court thing is a very special archaic use of the term<<<
Not really. It’s use runs rampant in law, which is very important in our society—witness recent Supreme Court decisions. I’m just speculating here, but dollars to donuts there were several documents filed in the recent Second Amendment case that contained a “Prayer for Relief”.
RD
Don't let this transparent tactic put you on the defensive. Rather, be aware they are at a loss for a reasoned reply.
Next time warn me beforehand before you start spreading manure like that. I need to put on my hip-waders.
You would have to present logic or truth before it could be threatening.
Rather, be aware they are at a loss for a reasoned reply.
Since you are unable to provide reasoned replies, it would make sense that we would be at a loss for them. When you start providing them, the problem will be solved.
>>>there were several documents filed in the recent Second Amendment case that contained a “Prayer for Relief”.<<<
And it was GRANTED.
Liars lie, what else can I say?
I'm not sure which is more comical, your belief that you have a better grasp on truth than the ONLY Church our Lord founded or your belief that you are logical.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
WE need to work out a cultural exchange. I have the world’s best compost. YOu could cook in it when it’s working.
But no time for serious gardening. I have my little Japanese garden style pruning and shaping to keep me busy.
And raised beds are like the organic, what, mecca or eldorado or something. The coolest for working and soil and controlled watering and all....
The inescapable implication seems to be that the assertion I’m responding to construes elevating blacks to be a bad thing.
Interesting.
Sometimes I think that there’s an RC dogma about
crowding the limits is next to White Hanky Nirvana.
I've found that when a statement is made that predicated upon a demonstrably false assumption (i.e. a false claim about the Church's teachings about the Blessed Mother), that a simple NO is sufficient as a response.
So, please, tell us . . .
out of 100,0000 atnys . . .
how many of them . . . whenever they see that word in that usage . . .
REMOTELY have in mind . . .
—the least bit of an attitude of Christian prayer toward God or anyone else?
—the least bit of an attitude of contrition, humility, reverence, submissiveness as toward God?
—the least bit of a conviction that somehow, God is going to miraculously respond in the matter as though to a prayer by one of His favorite kids?
—clasp their hands together and bow in reverence whenever the word is used?
The matter does not directly involve race, so adding race to the discussion is an odd and telling choice.
I favor attacking the false assumptions and premises and not answering until they have been hammered out.
are very free to throw the magic word “hate” around whenever they feel threatened by logic and/or truth which is at odds with their party line.
Don’t let this transparent tactic put you on the defensive. Rather, be aware they are at a loss for a reasoned reply.
INDEED . . . it is a very vain, repetitious, desperate attempt to flail at those who say such disconcerting things . . . to the facts that undermine the fantasy edifice of skyscrapers built on toothpick splinters.
Pray thee,
please give us the legal definition that would not be laughed out of court for the use of the word in such a context.
Short replies make you a “no-answer man,” while long and detailed replies are attacked for their spin, wiggle room and dizzying grammar.
It is not a pursuit of knowledge or an effort to engage in discussion in good faith. It’s attempted argument by attrition, an effort to “drive them crazy.”
Do you have any raised beds?
I’d come work em for you if you were closer! LOL.
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.