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.
My, my, my. You ARE getting personal tonight, Petronski.
You go girl (or guy)!!
Nope. No problems with us Bible believers.
You said: I can get you some hop plants...
You rock!!
Despite our theological differences you always make me smile. And I always envision you with a sly grin on your face.
Blessings.
If you rely only on Scripture, you have no Trinity.
I merely turned his insult back on him.
Read his response. He wasn't referring to the color of the storefront.
Place holder . . .
Some drunken Hindu monkeys are flailing away at ancient Royal typewriters on Goa trying to produce a suitable response.
. . . pending . . .
“Do you imagine the point is invalidated by Judas presence? Under what principle?”
Under the principle that there is no confidentiality or proprietary interest in the promise if it is made to a group including one who is not a recipient of the promise.
“Perhaps you could clear up that discrepancy for me?”
There is no discrepency.
John 16:13 says, “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth”,
and 1 John 2:20-21 says, “But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.”
27, “ But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.”
The promise of the Holy spirit leading them into truth is being fulfilled in the ?little children”.
LOL
You making this stuff up?
Is it your contention that the promise of the Holy Spirit leading them into all truth was made exclusively to the disciples, including Judas?
My contention is not what you have said, it is what the Scriptural verses say.
I rely only on scripture and it has served me well. The Holy Spirit inspired it and that’s good enough for me.
“My contention is not what you have said, it is what the Scriptural verses say”
Do the scriptures say that that promise was for the 12 disciples only? It is a yes or no question.
Well, I’ve been known to grin now and then. I know someone who sells hop plants. If you are interested, I’ll contact him. I think they’re like $5.00 each. Love, M
Which promise?
Aside from the fact this statement makes the common Protestant error of presuming all things must be validated by Scripture, it's proven false by your very next sentence.
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?
Is the Biblical standard not "two or three witnesses?" How many would you like before acknowledging Scriptural validity?
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.
Which goes to show the writers had no intention of writing a manual of faith and practice.
The same could be said for the doctrine of the Trinity. Do you deny that as well? It is not for anyone to discount authority by second guessing the intentions of the Gospel writers.
Paul is the writer who develops the concept yet half of his references are to the plural, churches.
Separated by distance, not doctrine.
... 1 Cor. 3:4-9 he makes it obvious that the church does not have as its basis historic Apostolic succession.
I disagree. This passage is silent on apostolic succession, as you well know, but rather addresses factions. A lamentation over party affiliation does not deny citizenship.
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.
Serving and authority are not mutually exclusive concepts. I think history has proven every yahoo with a Bible and a claim of Holy Spirit guidance makes for poor theology.
Forget it. It is obviously late.
I am not willing to answer your “yes or no question” based on (a) your formulation of a verse of Scripture or (b) your presentation of one verse of Scripture outside of its context.
Christ was addressing His disciples. He made them by these and other words the Bishops and Priests of the Church He founded, the Catholic Church.
There are to this day Catholic Churches all over the country and the world, all part of the Catholic Church.
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.