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.
Are you possibly claiming this was the only claim you made in that post?
I’m not a mind reader, so I cannot answer for any lawyer out there as to what, exactly, he/she has in mind when they petition the court with a “Prayer for Relief”. I imagine that most do not have a reverence for God when they write it. I can also imagine many DO have such reverence, particularly in matters related to faith—ie, ACLJ petitions, and matters involving injunctive relief as to ‘gay marriage’, abortion, etc.
The point is that they are praying, but it may not be to God.
(But I thank God that the Supremes granted the prayer for relief in the Second Amendment case)
Which is the point of my query to begin with: To say that prayer is defined only as worship, then there’s trouble in River City—because many of my Christian lawyer friends use the term on a regular basis.
However, if it means to make a request, or to ask for something, then the state of my friends’ souls really aren’t endangered, are they?
Still absurd.
You emulate him well.
You said: Are you possibly claiming you haven’t used the “hate” claim?
Certainly not. I call it the way it is. The hatred and bigotry directed at Christ and His Church by those misguided and deceived individuals with malice in their hearts will always be identified for what it is....continued, unrelenting hateful attacks on Christ Himself.
I was commenting on the other absurd claims contained in your personal attack, which subsequently caused the RM to reprimand you to stop the personal attacks.
THAT'S CRUCIALLY INACCURATE, WRONG, FALSE, NOT TRUE . . . whether I can articulate it, well, or not.
If you can't articulate it, why should anyone give heed to you? Gratuitous assertions can be just as gratuitously denied: by definition. I believe St. Paul referred to such conceits as a "banging gong or clanging cymbal."
Man had nothing to do with instituting it. It's just a fact of CREATION, OF ALL THAT IS. It's a fact of The Father's design vis a vis The Son without Whom was nothing Created.
Excuse me? Are we talking about the Bible here, or Manna? Denying man's involvement with the formation of the Bible is simply a denial of reality on par with CS Lewis' proverbial man claiming to be a poached egg.
All who earnestly seek God’s face find Him. All who have received Christ’s Blood covering as Salvation and covering for their sins have some measure of Holy Spirit leading them; seeking to lead them into closer fellowship and obedience to Him.
Again with the Korahish conceits.
I can't think of a better response than that already given by markomalley:
Sola Scriptura is absolutely unscriptural. The words of Our Lord testify to this themselves:John 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
To whom was He speaking there? The discourse began in John 13...the last supper. With whom was He speaking? The 12. This wasn't the Sermon on the Mount, where He spoke to thousands. And just think about it: if this promise was to all, then there would be NO divisions. All of us would be speaking from the same page. But it wasn't.
Then think about St. Paul's constant preaching to the particular churches. He constantly taught that they should get back to the Truth. If the Holy Ghost were to guide ALL into the Truth, there would be no need for him to do so. They would automatically do so. Why were there cautions about false teachers? Because some would take people away from the Truth and lead them into error.
2Ti 4:3-4 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.
This is simply false. The Bible as we know it is a direct result of the efforts and actions of the RCC.
One who would diminish the Holy Word diminishes the very contract that gives him life. He diminishes the Covenants which, given by God Himself to mankind, instruct us in what is pleasing to God, what is required by God, and the warnings He gives to those who refuse to live according to His will.
One does not "diminish" a thing by using it as it was intended. Rather, using the Bible, which Christ did not establish, to diminish the authority of the Church, which Christ DID establish, is nothing more that a byzantine replay of The Fall.
What man has the right to add to or subtract from the very words of Almighty Jehovah? Who would think to make them null? Who would not call them holy beyond all things on earth? No mortal man has that authority, and the only Man who does have that authority would not do so, as He said.
The Sabbath was made for man, not the other way around. The same goes for the Bible.
The Church prospered prior to the advent of the printing press, and it's existence does not now, nor has it ever, depended on a collection of documents; the Protestant rebellion however, does.
Is it your position that Christ would change a single word that came before Him?
I don't understand the relevance of the question, particularly as a response to my assertion the Bible is not a living entity.
What poppycock! It is your position that Christ never assumed His words would be written down?
No, it's my position He instituted a Church with attendant authority and hierarchy to be His voice on Earth, not a book. Men would not abide by that so they gathered up their intellectual jewels and built themselves a philosophical golden calf.
It is fitting and just to rebel against such as these. God does NOT change, and what He said to do before is fitting for a Protestant to do to the RCC
Pleading is not rebelling. It is the sin of the Reformation that they did not heed the witness of a David, but rather rebelled with the slander of an Absalom.
I prefer blue M&M’s.
Again, I understand this is challenging, but phrases like "complete biographical and personal data" have a definite meaning, and that meaning is NOT interchangeable with the question of where one went to school.
Not at all. Though I understand that "believes in him" carries very definite implications as explained in the book of James.
O ... M ...G ! And I don’t say that in vane. David and Absalom indeed. Since we’re making outlandish analogies I’d say more like Christ and the Pharisees. The Reformation was the Body of Christ rebelling against a wholly corrupt state institution. A dictatorship of the worst order. This is what irks me about RCs. They cling to an illusion. Just as the Jews clung to a legalistic corrupt priesthood at the time of Our Lord.
The Reformation was the Body of Christ rebelling against a wholly corrupt state institution.
Such perfect psychological projection I have not seen in many months.
If one’s faith, being without works, is dead, can he be said to believe in Christ?
That’s your opinion, tyger. Those of us who love God’s Word and try to live by it see it as blasphemous.
Indeed. The whole congregation has to be a good witness, showing love to all who need just that.
“With whom was He speaking? The 12”
And one was Judas so what is the point?
John reiterates the promise of the Holy Spirit to lead the “little children” into all truth in his general letter to the churches I John 2:20-29. In the beginning of the letter he also expands on his statement in his gospel (John 20:30-31) when he says 1 John 1:1-4, “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.”
John attests to the sufficiency of scripture.
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.