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.
Well; neither do I!
During a Catholic Mass, it is.
The Catholic Church has no secret teaching.
Fatima seems a little... mysterious.
Deception begets more deception. And on the altar - where 'they' will slaughter Him and drink His blood. Once isn't enough so they ignore It is Written It is Finished.
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap. Gal 6:7
Another warning they ignore at their own peril.
Oh I’m thinking the different interpretations are way more then 30,000. Why there are differences of interpretations within denominations and even individual churches. Just like in the Catholic Church. There are those who think abortion is all right, there are those who think women should be priests, there are those who think same sex marriage is ok, there are those who have all kinds of differences. Same in the Protestant denominations and individual churches. So what’s your point?
>>so the doctrinal differences from the SAME Scripture prove you wrong.<<
No it doesn’t. Salvation, regardless of what Catholics believe, is an individual thing. It has nothing to do with what a denomination teaches, or what an individual church teaches. I am accountable to God alone. I am accountable to what the Holy Spirit teaches me as an individual and how He guides me.
>>God's plans are perfect.<<
They most certainly are. That’s one of the reason I am assured that the Catholic Church is not of God’s design.
The Church has secrets: every sacramental confession is secret, no matter how long ago it took place. The prelates have their privacy. There are bank accounts, the diplomatic pouch, -- like in any organization. There is no secret teaching though, like for example the Gnostics claimed to have.
Jesus answered him: I have spoken openly to the world: I have always taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither all the Jews resort; and in secret I have spoken nothing (John 18:20)
Amazing isn’t it.
I KNOW God doesn't go against HIS OWN WORD and whispers into the pope/Rome with their man made teachings/their word.
"Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: "So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge." Romans 3:4
Catholic masses are said around the world at different times.
So, Fatima is not a church approved Marian Apparition and there have never been any undisclosed “revelations” of this apparition?
Exactly. The RCC is a worldly organization.
Jesus answered him: I have spoken openly to the world: I have always taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither all the Jews resort; and in secret I have spoken nothing (John 18:20)
And NOW the Holy Spirit speaks into His own temples, His Body of Believers.
and in secret I have spoken nothing
Remember that when anyone tells you their man made teachings are from God. GOD HAS EVERYTHING we need in HIS OWN WORD. He held nothing back from us - nor from Eve - but she listened to 'another' who spoke in opposition to HIS WORD.
All the states within the United States also have constitutions and they are governed according to them. In the areas that the Federal government overlaps, the U.S. Constitution states that as well. As Christians, we have a "constitution" and "bill of rights", too - the holy, revealed word of God, the Bible. As to a "Papacy" at the start of the church, you will find NO evidence that such a thing existed or was even thought to be needed. From the source Was the Papacy Established by Christ?:
If there had been a papacy in the first century that was recognized as a distinct office, we would expect it to be mentioned in much the same way that offices such as bishop and deacon are mentioned. We wouldn't expect Roman Catholics to have to go to passages like Matthew 16 and John 21 to find alleged references to a papacy if such an office of universal jurisdiction existed and was recognized during the New Testament era. Instead, we would expect explicit and frequent references to the office, such as in the pastoral epistles and other passages on church government.
That's what we see with the offices of bishop and deacon. Not only are the offices mentioned (Acts 20:17, Philippians 1:1), but we also see repeated references to their appointment (Acts 14:23, Ephesians 4:11, Titus 1:5), their qualifications (1 Timothy 3:1-13, Titus 1:5-9), their discipline (1 Timothy 5:19-20), their responsibilities (Ephesians 4:12-13, Titus 1:10-11, James 5:14, 1 Peter 5:1-3), their reward (1 Timothy 5:17-18, 1 Peter 5:4), their rank (1 Corinthians 12:28), the submission due them (1 Timothy 2:11-12), etc. If there was an office that was to have jurisdictional primacy and infallibility throughout church history, an office that could be called the foundation of the church, wouldn't we expect it to be mentioned explicitly and often? But it isn't mentioned at all, even when the early sources are discussing Peter or the Roman church. In the New Testament, which covers about the first 60 years of church history (the prophecies in Revelation and elsewhere cover much more), there isn't a single Roman bishop mentioned or named, nor are there any admonitions to submit to the papacy or any references to appointing Popes, determining whether he's exercising his infallibility, appealing to him to settle disputes, etc. When speaking about the post-apostolic future, the apostles are concerned with bishops and teachers in general (Acts 20:28-31, 2 Timothy 2:2) and submission to scripture (2 Timothy 3:15-17, 2 Peter 3:1-2, Revelation 22:18-19), but don't say a word about any papacy.
Craig Keener, citing Jaroslav Pelikan, comments that "most scholars, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, concur that Peter died in Rome but doubt that Mt 16:18 intended the authority later claimed by the papacy (Pelikan 1980: 60)" (A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999], n. 74 on p. 425). The Roman Catholic scholar Klaus Schatz comments:
"There appears at the present time to be increasing consensus among Catholic and non-Catholic exegetes regarding the Petrine office in the New Testament….The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative. That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the author of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably 'no.'…If we ask in addition whether the primitive Church was aware, after Peter’s death, that his authority had passed to the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the Church’s rock and hence the subject of the promise in Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must certainly be given a negative answer." (Papal Primacy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996], pp. 1-2)
What's said of Peter in Matthew 16 and John 21 is said of other people in other passages. Other people are rocks upon whom the church is built (Ephesians 2:20), other people have the keys of the kingdom that let them bind and loose and open and shut (Matthew 18:18, 23:13), and other people are shepherds of the church (Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:2). Just as Peter is given a second name, so are other people (Mark 3:17). Peter is called "Peter" prior to the events of Matthew 16 (John 1:42), and we can't know whether he was given the name as a result of Matthew 16 or, instead, Jesus' choice of imagery in Matthew 16 was shaped by a name Peter was already given for another reason.
Peter is singled out in Matthew 16 and John 21, but his being singled out doesn't suggest jurisdictional primacy. We could speculate that Peter is singled out in these passages because he's supposed to fulfill the roles in these passages in a greater way than other people, but such a speculation can't be proven. Other people are singled out in other passages, but we don't conclude that those people were Popes. Even if Peter was singled out because he was to fulfill these roles (rock and shepherd) in a greater way than anybody else, he wouldn't need to be a Pope in order to fulfill these roles in a greater way than other people. And he wouldn't need to have successors in that role.
So, if Peter isn't singled out in Matthew 16 and John 21 because he was being made a Pope, then why was he singled out?
In Matthew 16, he's probably singled out because he singles himself out. He's the one who answered Jesus' question. Similarly, John and James are singled out in Mark 10:35-40 because they were the ones who initiated the discussion with Jesus, not because they were being given some sort of primacy.
In John 21, Peter probably is singled out because he was the one in need of restoration. Peter was the one who denied Jesus three times and thus needed to reaffirm his love for Jesus three times. Since the other apostles didn't deny Jesus as Peter did, it would make no sense for Jesus to approach them the way He approached Peter. Similarly, Jesus treats Thomas (John 20:26-29), John (John 21:20-23), and Paul (Acts 9:1-15) differently than He treats the other apostles. But nobody would assume that Thomas, John, or Paul therefore has jurisdictional primacy or that such a primacy was passed on to a succession of bishops.
Catholics sometimes argue for a papacy by interpreting Matthew 16 in light of Isaiah 22:20-22. But whatever relevance Isaiah 22 would have to Matthew 16, it would have relevance for Matthew 23, Luke 11, and other passages that use such imagery as well. And any Catholic appeal to Isaiah 22 would have to be a partial appeal, not a complete parallel, since a complete parallel wouldn't favor the claims of Roman Catholicism. God is the one who gives the key in Isaiah 22, so an exact parallel would put Jesus in the place of God, not in the place of the king. So, if Jesus is God and Peter is the prime minister, then who is the king? Some church official with more authority than Peter? What about Isaiah 22:25? Should we assume that Popes can "break off and fall", and that the keys of Matthew 16 can eventually pass to God Himself (Revelation 3:7) rather than to a human successor? If Catholics only want to make a general appeal to Isaiah 22, without making an exact parallel, then how can they claim that papal authority is implied by the parallel? Why can't the Isaiah 22 background convey a general theme of authority without that authority being of a papal nature?
Paul refers to "apostles" (plural) as the highest rank in the church (1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 2:20), and he names Peter second among three reputed pillars of the church (Galatians 2:9). The most natural reading of the Biblical evidence is to see Peter as a highly reputed pillar of the church who had equal rank, equal jurisdiction, with the other apostles. He could be said to have had some types of primacy in some contexts, and the same could be said of other apostles and early church leaders, but there's no reason to think that papal authority was one of those types of primacy or that such authority was passed on exclusively to a succession of Roman bishops.
There is no papacy in the New Testament. It's not there explicitly or implicitly. This "clear doctrine of Holy Scripture" that the First Vatican Council refers to isn't even Biblical, much less clearly Biblical. Roman Catholics assume that a papacy is implied in some New Testament passages, but that assumption can't be proven and is unlikely.
Just as you presume non-Catholic Christians have a false image of Catholics' faith, so you indicate the same false impression of other Christians who are not Catholic. I fully grasp and appreciate that, "...the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." (Heb.4:12). Rather than "divorcing Scripture from the body that recorded it", we recognize and accept that that same "body" is comprised of all believers since the very first one came to saving faith - it is a "spiritual house", not an institution set up in a single location holding court over all Christians. When we say that Scripture must be the source for the tenets of our faith, we are simply stating something that even the Roman Catholic Church believes - that Scripture is Divine revelation and, as such, it is authoritative and inerrant. Because of this, we conclude that everything God expects of us to believe to be saved is contained in this book.
Nobody denies that the Catholic Church has developed its doctrine over time. That it doesn't see the essential need to have Scripture to back up its truth claims is troubling to those who DO hold to God's word as our guide to truth. As far as I care, you all can believe whatever you want, but when you come on these OPEN religion forums and insist that because the Catholic Church proclaims thus and such it should be enough to prove it must be accepted, you should expect to be challenged by those who hold to a higher authority - the Word of God.
I think if Catholics on this forum expect to be treated with respect and decency, they should be willing to show the same towards those with whom they disagree. Spitting out epitaphs and spouting broad brush condemnations will accomplish little more than throwing lighter fluid on a glowing ember. It behooves all of us to speak the truth with gentleness and respect, as much as lieth in us.
From what we can gather, Joseph was a carpenter from Nazareth - not an "upper crust" or wealthy profession in those days. As such, it would be doubtful that Mary's parents would have betrothed their very young, virgin daughter (from the lineage of King David) to an older, poor man with other children.
I also question if he did have children from another marriage, why they didn't accompany him and Mary to the census they were called to at Bethlehem. If he could have left them with other relatives, why didn't he also leave his very pregnant wife as well rather than take her along on such an arduous journey?
Finally, if the writers of the gospels intended for the doctrine of the "perpetual" virginity of Mary to be an article of faith among all Christians, why didn't they say so when they wrote the accounts of Jesus' birth? Why did Matthew, for example, say, "he had no union with her until she gave birth” in Matthew 1:25? Why use the words that imply he did have normal marital relations after Jesus was born? Why use the Greek words for "brothers" and "sisters" and not cousins if these people were not actual brothers and sisters?
Whoever is faithful with very little is also faithful with a lot, and whoever is dishonest with very little is also dishonest with a lot. (Luke 16:10)
Amen! That’s MHO, too. :o)
No need to explain anything - GOD has already spoken.
God’s Word is the Final Authority in all matters. NOTHING can change TRUTH. So give it a rest.
The Peace of God lives within me. I lack for nothing being ‘in Christ’.
Luther showed what was already broken and corrupt. And the rest is history! Rome with their 'man made' teachings were left in the dust and now...
His Church has Born again Holy Spirit-filled Believers - just like Jesus said His Church/His Body of Believers would be! And well-equipped to READ and OBEY His Word and spread The Gospel! Praise GOD!
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.