Posted on 12/08/2012 2:24:39 PM PST by NYer
Do Catholics worship Mary? This question is as old as the Protestant Reformation itself, and it rests, like other disputed doctrinal points, on a false premise that has been turned into a wedge: the veneration of Mary detracts from the worship of Christ.
This seeming opposition between Mary and Christ is symptomatic of the Protestant tendency, begun by Luther, to view the entirety of Christian life through a dialectical lens – a lens of conflict and division. With the Reformation the integrity of Christianity is broken and its formerly coherent elements are now set in opposition. The Gospel versus the Law. Faith versus Works. Scripture versus Tradition. Authority versus Individuality. Faith versus Reason. Christ versus Mary.
The Catholic tradition rightly sees the mutual complementarity of these elements of the faith, as they all contribute to our ultimate end – living with God now and in eternity. To choose any one of these is to choose them all.
By contrast, to assert that Catholics worship Mary along with or in place of Christ, or that praying to Mary somehow impedes Christ’s role as “the one mediator between God and men” (1 Tim 2:5) is to create a false dichotomy between the Word made flesh and the woman who gave the Word his flesh. No such opposition exists. The one Mediator entrusted his mediation to the will and womb of Mary. She does not impede his mediation – she helps to make it possible.
Within this context we see the ancillary role that the ancilla Domini plays in her divine Son’s mission. Mary’s is not a surrogate womb rented and then forgotten in God’s plan. She is physically connected to Christ and his life, and because of this she is even more deeply connected to him in the order of grace. She is, in fact, “full of grace,” as only one who is redeemed by Christ could be.
The feast of Mary’s Immaculate Conception celebrates the very first act of salvation by Christ in the world. Redemption is made possible for all by his precious blood shed on the cross. Yet Mary’s role in the Savior’s life and mission is so critical and so unique that God saw it necessary to wash her in the blood of the Lamb in advance, at the first moment of her conception.
This reality could not be more Biblical: the angel greets Mary as “full of grace” (Luke 1:28), which is literally rendered as “already graced” (kecharitōmenē). Following Mary, the Church has “pondered what sort of greeting this might be” for centuries. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception, ultimately defined in 1854, is nothing other than a rational expression of the angel’s greeting contained in Scripture: Mary is “already graced” with Christ’s redemption at the very moment of her creation.
Because God called Mary to the unique vocation of serving as the Mother of God, it is not just her soul that is graced, as is the case for us when we receive the sacraments. Mary’s entire being, body and soul, is full of grace so that she may be a worthy ark for the New Covenant. And just as the ark of the old covenant was adorned with gold to be a worthy house for God’s word, Mary is conceived without original sin to be the living and holy house for God’s Word.
Thus Mary is not only conceived immaculately, that is, without stain of sin. She also is the Immaculate Conception. Her entire being was specifically created by God with unique privilege so that she could fulfill her role in God’s plan of salvation. “Free from sin,” both original and personal, is the necessary consequence of being “full of grace.”
Protestants claim that veneration of Mary as it is practiced by Catholics is not biblical. St. Paul encouraged the Corinthians to “be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (1 Cor 11:1). Paul is not holding himself up as the end goal, but as a means to Christ, the true end. And if a person is imitated, he is simultaneously venerated.
If we should imitate Paul, how much more should we imitate Mary, who fulfilled God’s will to the greatest degree a human being could. Throughout her life she humbled herself so that God could be exalted, and because of this, Christ has fulfilled his promise by exalting his lowly mother to the seat closest to him in God’s kingdom.
Mary is the model of humility, charity, and openness to the will of God. She allows a sword to pierce her heart for the sake of the world’s salvation. She shows us the greatness to which we are called: a life free from sin and filled with God’s grace that leads to union with God in Heaven. She is the model disciple, and therefore worthy of imitation and veneration, not as an end in herself, but as the means to the very purpose of her – and our – existence: Christ himself.
God’s lowly handmaiden would not want it any other way.
Exodus plays a major role in Catholic Old Testament typology pertaining to the Eucharist, mgist. I’m surprised you need someone from outside your church to point this out.
Now, review your statement to which I responded once again, and see just where the problem lies.
Or, would you prefer that I do that for you as well?
John 2:1 On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.
John 2:3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”
Acts 1:14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.
The phrase, *mother of God* does not show up in Scripture anywhere.
I'll go with what God called her instead of what man made up about her.
Pure speculation.
It is a beautiful story about Moses leading Jews out of slavery, it is our early salvation history.
No, it's not. It's an account of God DELIVERING His people out of the bondage and slavery of Egypt through a deliverer He sent.
Moses didn't do it. God did.
No, not another one changing your words.
Did it ever occur to you that if that many people are misunderstanding you, the problem isn't with everybody else?
No, only you two. Same cult?
As much as you may feel that you are knowledgable about the Catholic church, from what I have seen so far, you have no idea.
The Eucharist has nothing to do with Exodus, and everyting to do with Jesus, when at the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1323)
bangs head on desk.....
And exactly what meal was Jesus celebrating when He ate the Last Supper with the disciples?
Here's a clue.....
Matthew 26:2 “You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man will be delivered up to be crucified.”
Matthew 26:17-19 Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Where will you have us prepare for you to eat the Passover?” He said, “Go into the city to a certain man and say to him, ‘The Teacher says, My time is at hand. I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples.’” And the disciples did as Jesus had directed them, and they prepared the Passover.
Luke 22:15 And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.
The Passover lamb foreshadows Jesus, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
Jesus was crucified during the Passover, the sacrificial lamb to end the system of OT sacrifices.
The Law points to Jesus so that the Jews would recognize Him when He came.
And just like the Passover meal was a celebration or ceremony of remembrance of the Passover when God delivered His people from the angel of death, communion is a ceremony of remembrance of what Jesus did for us in delivering us from the bondage of sin and death.
The best way to respond when you think someone is doing that to you is to respond to each one so that you avoid making a blanket statement calling another person a "liar". You were asked to show proof of such accusations and you failed to do so yet you continued to assert the other was lying. Frankly, I'm surprised you got away with using those words so many times without a rebuke by the moderators. Maybe they were busy with their families and the holidays, but you got away with things the rest of us know better than to say.
Again, if you believe someone is misquoting you, respond to it stating what they misquoted. If someone "misuses" your words, call them on what they misused (maybe it is only a semantics or understanding issue and not a blatant lie). As for "taking Scripture and omitting key content", that is something that can easily be addressed by quoting the entire verse and those surrounding it - something I have to do on a regular basis when contending with RCs here. Very, very few folks here intentionally distort or lie about issues here, it's too easy to be exposed for doing it. FReepers are a pretty smart bunch!
It won't - it's the ROME counterfeit teaching. God always was - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Jesus is The Word.
As we know Rome/RCC doesn't obey The Word - so they are none of HIS. They have their own word - the catechism. And they belong to a Mary as Rome teaches and not JESUS.
Finally, can you name one oral, extra-biblical tradition, demonstratively traceable to the apostolic age, which is necessary for the faith and practice of the Church of Jesus Christ?
there are many, but i will name one - the canon of the Scriptures. if we are ONLY to rely on the written Scriptures for our beliefs, WE MUST KNOW WHAT IS SCRIPTURE AND WHAT IS NOT.
now, show me from what you accept to be Scripture, a table of contents.
THE ONLY WAY WE HAVE TO SAY INFALLIBLY WHAT IS SCRIPTURE AND WHAT IS NOT, IS THE SACRED TRADITION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
the Church received the books from the Apostles and those disciples of the Apostles and handed the books down from one generation to the next, faithfully and painstakingily hand copying them for 1,400 and some odd years until the printing press was invented.
can you tell me why you accept a 27 book NT?
I am sure St Athanasius would be quite amused that his mighty battles on behalf of the Catholic Faith against the heretics of his day ( mainly against the Arians ) would be used by present day heretics who deny the very same Catholic Faith that he fought so bravely for.
isn’t it ironic?
Words such as "false" "error" "wrong" do not attribute motive.
Also do NOT accuse another Freeper of any mental disorder. That is also "making it personal."
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
THAT verse was going over and over in my mind last night! How'd you do that? ;o)
No, that is not the only way.
Jesus established what was Scripture when He said *It is written...* and when He referred to certain passages of the Jews Scripture as Scripture.
That alone settles the OT.
The Catholic claim that it is responsible for determining what is Scripture is not true as the Jews had the OT canon before the Catholic church even existed.
Matthew 5:17-20 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Luke 24:25-27 25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.
Matthew 23:34-35 34 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, 35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.
Catholic church tradition has nothing to do with Jesus establishing the OT as Scripture.
Manna is regarded as being a type of the true bread from Heaven, Jesus Christ, and hence the Host, tying Exodus back into the Eucharist yet again mgist.
Sometimes, criticism is constructive and instructive if one chooses to receive it in that manner.
I did that several times, and every time, my comments were repeatedly distorted into somethine else. When I clarified false references to Catholic doctrine, that person simply repeated the false doctrine again, omitted and distorting information, and knowingly repeated false information. That person acts as if they had some sort of authority and knowledge about the Catholic church, and simply repeats false statements. That is deception. God is not deceptive.
Jesus established the books of the NT?
exactly how did He do that?
as far as the OT goes, the Apostles used the Septuigant, which contained 7 books not in your Bible.
why don’t you use the OT that Paul used?
i repeat, without Catholic Tradition, you would have no idea what is Scripture and what is not.
I located a nice link that is fairly thorough in demonstrating types and shadows of the Eucharist in the Old Testament from a Catholic perspective.
Thank you for your agreement and support. I’ll share it with you, since you’re receptive:
http://scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html
I’m not Catholic and never have been, you were once but are no longer, and yet we see this better than a very outspoken apologist.
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.