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’ve been a Christian for almost 40 years and haven’t met a snake handler yet. Are they in YOUR part of the country? They sure aren’t here.
Mary, you are entitled to your own opinion; you are not entitled to your own facts.
The definition of blasphemy is a matter of fact, not opinion.
As it stands, you are simply using the term inappropriately for a curse.
You sure do like to push the personal attack button, don’t you?
Thank you, Quix. You express things much better and with more fervor than I do.
That’s not a personal attack. He’s a smart guy who makes a conscious decision to post as he does. Ask him, he’ll tell you.
We call it the Living Word because for a Christian who has a relationship with the Living God can read it as such. Those who do not, then it IS just a ‘book.’ God doesn’t reveal things to folks who do not know His Son Jesus as their Lord and Saviour and are not filled with His Spirit.
Apparently, Martin Luther.
There is no scriptural evidence for this. If the institutional Church was so important and its hierarchy established by Jesus why is there only 2 references to it in the Gospels, Matthew 16:16 and 18:17? None of the other Gospel writers thought it important enough to record Jesus teaching on such an important subject, in fact, Peter does not even mention it in his letters.
Paul is the writer who develops the concept yet half of his references are to the plural, churches. The majority of his letters are to small groups in individual house churches and in 1 Cor. 3:4-9 he makes it obvious that the church does not have as its basis historic Apostolic succession.
The only authority in the church is its Head, Christ and the Holy Spirit who dispenses gifts necessary for the equipping of the saints. All others are servants.
Amen, John.
I wouldn’t be sitting in a church that had one little snake in it. Brrrrr.
(shhhhh. It’s been kept a secret, dontchaknow?)
The word Trinity isn’t found in the Bible either, so what’s the problemo?
I’ve prayed in tongues from time to time. What of it? It’s not demonic, you know. Paul prayed in tongues and he prophesied. If it’s good enough for Paul...
You pray to God through His Son, Jesus Christ, our intercessor. I think it’s okay to pray for almost anything but remember, He doesn’t always answer prayers in the way we think He should. He has promised to provide for us, so pray for provision. Pray for healing, marriages, others who are going through tough times, for court appearances, etc.
Do you imagine the point is invalidated by Judas presence? Under what principle?
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.
This application of verses 20-29 seems questionable not only from the implicit assumption of who the "little children" are, but from the fact John writes pertaining to "them that seduce you" along with what looks like immunity for those to whom he is writing. Perhaps you could clear up that discrepancy for me?
John attests to the sufficiency of scripture.
I see no such attestation.
Maybe the store front was black...
Thanks for answering. I chose to ignore him.
I can get you some hop plants...
And you don’t have to worry about your salvation. You can know before the casket closes over you.
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.