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.
This is too sweeping a statement. It is true that St. Paul calls some physically living people saints; it is not true that he calls every Christian saint. This phrase shows that there is some distinction: if one were already a saint it would make no sense to call him a fellow citizen with the saints. It is clearer in these examples:
all that are at Rome, the beloved of God, called to be saints. (Romans 1:7)To the church of God that is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that invoke the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, in every place of theirs and ours. (1 Corinthians 1:2)
These are two place where "saints" is used with elaboration, and from the elaboration it is clear that professed Christians "that invoke the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" are called to be saints, but they are not necessarily yet saints.
Examples of asking these saints for prayer are numerous, virtually in every letter of St. Paul.
Not one instance in all of scripture did anyone pray to a saint or suggest we do the same.
If you believe that a saint has eternal life you must believe that they can hear prayer and act on it, -- what else would that life be? The scripture does not record a direct example of praying to a saint who passed on, but that is a natural development of faith that happened after the New Testament was written and many martyrs entered Heaven. Fittingly, the last book of the New Testament shows the efficacy of the prayers to saints even though it only shows saints praying, but not the faithful asking for the prayers. See the next paragraph.
It only says they hold the vessels that “contain” our prayers.
The saints actually pray; others deliver the prayers:
and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints (Apocalypse/Revelation) 5:8)Another angel came, and stood before the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar, which is before the throne of God. And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel. (Apocalypse/Revelation) 8:3-4)
Unless your reading of these is that the saints pray, the angels and the ancients deliver these prayers to the altar, Mean Protestant God ignores them and the Revelation of John reveals an absurd act of Catholic foolishness, with all their smells and altars, -- here you have a scriptural statement of the efficacy of our Catholic prayers.
I deny that there is a "rather then" (than?). We are becoming images of God, yes, but we also are beholding an image of God, which is like looking through a mirror. Unless you imagine the first Christians praying in front of mirrors, they are praying to an icon with an image on it.
This is not the only reference to holy images in St. Paul's writing. Here is another:
who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been set forth, crucified among you? (Galatians 3:1)Galatia in in Asia Minor; Christ was crucified in Jerusalem. How do the Galatians have crucified Jesus before their eyes?
“Rabbinical Judaism calculated a lifespan of Moses corresponding to 1391–1271 BCE; Christian tradition has tended to assume an earlier date: Jerome’s Chronicon (4th century) gives 1592 for the birth of Moses, the 17th-century Ussher chronology calculates 1619 BC (Annals of the World, 1658) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses"; You could be right, but it seems nobody knows exactly because for many years the Old Testament was Oral Tradition. Jesus and His family were very loyal to their Jewish traditions (in the bible), so I don’t know why there is such a problem with that. There was no bible/Torah durin Exodus, no printing press, and very few people had access to scrolls. That is one of the many reason Sola Scriptura doesn’t make sense to me.
You could be right, but it seems nobody knows exactly because for many years the Old Testament was Oral Tradition. Jesus and His family were very loyal to their Jewish traditions (in the bible), so I don't know why there is such a problem with that. There was no bible/Torah durin Exodus, no printing press, and very few people had access to scrolls. That is one of the many reason Sola Scriptura doesn't make sense to me.
There is a "hint": Protestants are by inclination vandals, and should be eradicated from the face of the earth just for that, -- and soon they will be a dark historical memory in Christendom, just like the iconoclast have become.
see the varied supposed paintings of Christ
Naturally, a vandal cannot understand what is written, but a vandal likes to argue. I did not write anything about "paintings": there are many artists who paint what they imagine, often, without any touch of reality. But I wrote about holy icons. Find me two icons that do not show the same face of Christ.
I believe what the scripture says, and it says that the Holy Spirit transforms us as we look at an icon. I never wrote anything to the contrary.
The Orthodox (it is not specifically Roman Catholic) iconography is a part of the Christian tradition that dates back to the Unified Church. In all likelihood it predates the scripture. It is not, being imagery rather than words a part of the scripture. It is the Holy Tradition of the Church.
A fantasy is something invented by a human being without any historical or traditional basis for it. This is why Protestantism is a fantasy. The triple virginity of Mary is tradition, — because no one of note in the Early Church believed otherwise. It is a Catholic belief. No one said this particular belief is recorded in scripture — it is not.
You list some modern explanations as well and attempt to ridicule them. The truth is that the Church does not say anything specific of the manner of baby Christ passing through Our Lady’s body, other than the belief that it remained intact. By your logic such belief is foolish because Christ was incarnate and therefore — you reason — “everything that accompanies human childbirth was there at his birth”. By that logic you would deny any of His miracles: pasign through walls, walking on water, etc. Are these “myths and fantasies” to you?
“All of Christianity” made sense when St. Vincent wrote his famous definition. Today we have sects such as the many Protestant sects, who are just barely Christian but surely are not any kind of barometer of catholicity. So what you believe on this issue, — or on any other — is not of concern to us.
Yup. Thank you.
So let’s look at the veracity of that document.
According to the supposed “Gospel of James” we find in verse 13. Supposedly Joseph has just asked Mary “Whence then is that which is in thy womb?”
And she said: “As the Lord my God liveth, I do not know whence it is to me”.
But in Luke we find this.
Luke 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. 36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing shall be impossible. 38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
So did Mary lie according to the account in James? Did she not believe the angel Gabriel as it’s recorded in Luke? Is Luke in error or is the so called “Gospel of James?
Then we find in verse 23 the supposed words of King Harod.
23. And Herod searched for John, and sent officers to Zacharias, saying: Where hast thou hid thy son? And he, answering, said to them: I am the servant of God in holy things, and I sit constantly in the temple of the Lord: I do not know where my son is. And the officers went away, and reported all these things to Herod. And Herod was enraged, and said: His son is destined to be king over Israel. And he sent to him again, saying: Tell the truth; where is thy son? for thou knowest that thy life is in my hand. And Zacharias said: I am God's martyr, if thou sheddest my blood; for the Lord will receive my spirit, because thou sheddest innocent blood at the vestibule of the temple of the Lord. And Zacharias was murdered about daybreak. And the sons of Israel did not know that he had been murdered.
But in Matthew 2 we find this.
Matthew 2:7 Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. 8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also. 9 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. 10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. 11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother,
So once again we have to wonder. Is the account in the so called “Gospel of James” correct or is the account in Matthew correct? Given that Catholics tell us that it was the Catholic Church who “gave us scripture” and that it was they who validated the accuracy of that scripture we must by their account believe that both Matthew and Luke are correct. But then they come along and tell us that “the Gospel of James” is also correct and we are missing information.
Is it any wonder that Catholics don’t believe that scripture is sufficient? After all, in the documents they rely on there are all kinds of contradictions.
If that is what the RCC boasts as their preservation of scripture it’s obvious to me that God used other avenues to “preserve” scripture.
Moses spent several periods of forty days and forty nights in supernatural communion with God.
When he returned, he spent FORTY YEARS orally teaching the Children of Israel what he had learned.
It wasn’t until a month or so before he died that God instructed him to write Torah scrolls, which could not have contained forty years worth of teaching in an overt form.
Good point. In Matthew 5-7 Jesus goes over the Ten Commandments -- at least over the bulk of them. Some of them He repeats and strengthens: not only must we not kill but we must not offend; not only must we not commit adultery but we must not even lust after others, etc. Some He never repeats. The commandment to not make graven images is one He does not repeat. Indeed, as scripture tells us He Himself is an image of God, but being fully human there is not impediment in logic against making an image of Him.
In all the discourse on the Ten Commandments Jesus uses this refrain: "It is written... but I am telling you...". He is, in other words, teaching us a critical attitude of reason toward the precepts of the Old Testament. The Holy Apostolic Church heard this teaching; among the first acts of the Church was to abolish the dietetic commandments of the Old Testament and to move the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday, the Resurrection Day.
So the love and veneration of Holy Images is a part of authentic Christian faith that appears to contradict the Old Testament, but rather, as the entire work of Christ, it fulfills it as a prohibition that had outlived its usefulness and purpose with the arrival of the Incarnate God.
This is something I've been thinking about recently. I think it's clear when compared to passages such as Mark 6:3-4, that there were words for "brother" that are not the same as that used for "cousin" (or "relative") in Luke. This isn't to say that it would be impossible to imagine another writer using the term "brother" to indicate "cousin", but it does seem more unlikely.
Putting that aside for the moment, what do you (or anyone reading this) think of the possibility that Joseph had children from a previous marriage? Isn't that possible?
Thankgiving isn't in the bible, it happened, God blessed the Pilgrims, and it is an American tradition to celebrate that event. What is so wrong with that. That is what we have in the Catholic faith.
Our founding fathers knew how easily negative influences could erode American freedom, so in order to protect freedom, they established a separation of powers, a Bill of Rights and a Constitution, because without it there would be anarchy and eventual dictatorship. If every State of the Union had no accountability, there would be no union. The organization and heirarchy of the RCC is necessary.
CynicalBear, do you believe in the Trinity? Christmas celebration? What church do you belong to?
No I don’t. If I were to believe that then I would also have to believe that they are omnipresent which they are not. Unless of course you can show proof from scripture that those that Catholics refer to as saints and Mary were also given omnipresence.
>>The scripture does not record a direct example of praying to a saint who passed on<<
Yeah, we noticed.
>>but that is a natural development of faith that happened after the New Testament was written and many martyrs entered Heaven.<<
An obvious conjecture on the part of Catholics. No thanks.
>>and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints (Apocalypse/Revelation) 5:8)<<
No evidence there of any of the saints in heaven actually praying. Only that they carried the vials.
>>Another angel came, and stood before the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar, which is before the throne of God. And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel. (Apocalypse/Revelation) 8:3-4)<<
Looks like there it was and angel who carried the prayers before the throne not saints.
>>Unless your reading of these is that the saints pray, the angels and the ancients deliver these prayers to the altar, Mean Protestant God ignores them and the Revelation of John reveals an absurd act of Catholic foolishness, with all their smells and altars,<<
Nope, we are given this assurance and command regarding prayer.
Hebrews 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
Now isn’t that interesting! Paul tells us in Hebrews that it is we who have the privilege of going directly to the throne of God. But the Catholic Church says no, no we must go through Mary or the Saints because we have a better chance of being heard. Decisions, decisions. Either we listen to Paul and go directly to the throne of God with assurance of being heard or we listen to the Catholic Church who evidently believes that Paul wasn’t telling the whole truth.
This would be the Catholic ping list you claimed not to be a memeber of last week.
With all due respect, you seem to be missing annalex’s point. At least I think you might.
I pray directly to God too, probably more than to the Saints. (That’s just me though). The (my) point is though, you can do both. No one says you “can’t” pray to God directly. As you ask some to pray for you here though, we ask the Saints.
It really comes down to whether or not you believe the Saints in heaven can hear our prayers. I do not think it would require “omnipresence” or even “omniscience” to do this. If, as the Church claims, it is true the Church is united even though physical death, it wouldn’t require any of thos attributes at all. It would only require that we are all mysteriously united to the same Body, the Body of Christ, and anyone on earth is indeed united to those in heaven through this same Body (assuming they have been Baptized).
Exactly Sola Scriptura wasn't possible.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
>>which is like looking through a mirror<<
No it’s not. We don’t look through a mirror. A mirror reflects. So unless you are placing a statue of some sort in front of that mirror…..
>>This is not the only reference to holy images in St. Paul's writing. Here is another:<<
Oh please. You quote Galatians 3:1 “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?” claiming that somehow that is to be taken literally as evidence there must have been some sort of statue or image before them. But just before that in Chapter 2:20 “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” You must then also believe that Paul was literally crucified with Christ.
They are "equal to the angels" (Luke 20:36) so yes, a saint, like and angel can be present anywhere he wishes at once. Makes sense to believe that.
No evidence there of any of the saints in heaven actually praying. Only that they carried the vials
Can you read? The scripture says "prayers of saints" three times in these two passages. Yes, angels deliver them.
we who have the privilege of going directly to the throne of God
Yes, and we do, as FourtySeven testifies. We have been photographed doing it:
Wasn’t it you also who brought up the term Jihad? Hmmmm. I suppose it will be back to confession for you?
>>Naturally, a vandal cannot understand what is written, but a vandal likes to argue.<<
Well, well, well! I wonder where that post falls in “who demean others, who use condescending, flippant, and dismissive language”?
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.