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.
The argument was against people who said no one should get married.
For half its history priests married in the RCC.
Technically speaking the Orthodox have married priests ~ but in reality young men are married off to all the really hot chicks before they become priests ~ usually at the last minute.
Personally I believe pair-bonding among humans was built into our very being.
Not that you'd be guilty of thinking that you were the center of attention on Sunday, but ......... well, you know what I just said.
Some groups, the Methodists for example, have someone they call a bishop. His job is fund raising and ministerial retirement programs ~
God gave you the freewill to accept and reject what you will. I believe otherwise.
Peace be with you.
So, Jesus got His y-chromosome from Whom?
Science has again affirmed what the Church has always believed.
Peace be with you
In Scripture we see liberty of religious vows made before conversion, and even illicit marriage is called marriage, as is any taking of a wife, even when it was under conditions that allow for possible annulment. But as Rome provides many conditions, then as said, thus multitudes of RCs may be living in fornication seeing at others like them have received annulments (though i do not doubt many Christians are living in adultery).
However, your charge that the life long marriage btwn two never married adults is no better than homosexual marriage, all rests upon your premise that Rome has supreme authority (and your interpretation of this event, as other RCs disagree or see it as adultery), but as we see this as being that of self declaration, your assertions simply have no weight.
Stem Cells are themselves a recent revelation! Leafing through the Bible real quick they didn’t pop out at me. But then again, I don’t look at it as a science book ~
I am not willing to attribute their error to evil. I have no doubt that the vast majority of all regular participants on the Religion Forum are people of great faith that sincerely love God. None of us is completely without error in our attempts to understand the mysteries of faith. Let's deal with the error with respect to all parties.
Peace be to you.
Nowhere does the Bible attempt to explain how God does anything, only that He did.
Nowhere does the Bible attempt to explain how God does anything, only that He did.
Titus 1:5-7: Bishops and elders were one: the former (episkopos=superintendent or “overseer,”[from “epi” and “skopos” (“watch”) in the sense of “episkopeō,” to oversee, — Strong's) refers to function; the latter (presbuteros=senior) to seniority (in age, implying maturity, or position). Titus was to “set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders [presbuteros] in every city, as I had appointed thee: “If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop [episkopos] must be blameless...” (Titus 1:5-7) Paul also "sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church," (Acts 20:17) who are said to be episkopos in v. 28. Elders are also what were ordained for every church in Acts 14:23, and bishops along with deacons are the only two classes of clergy whom Paul addresses in writing to the church in Phil. 1:1. This does not exclude that there could have been “archbishops/elders” in the New Testament church who were head pastors over others, but there is no titular distinctions in Scripture denoting such, and which distinctions are part of the hierarchical class distinctions which came later, and foster love of titles and position which the Lord warned about. (Mk. 10:42-44; Mt. 23:8-10).
Does presbyter or elder mean priest?
In her effort to conform the Bible to her erroneous understanding of what the elements used in the Lord's Supper (“Eucharist”), Roman Catholicism (and near kin) came to render presbuteros” as “priests” in English (which the RC Douay Rheims Bible inconsistently does: Acts 20:17; Titus 1:5), and sometimes “episkopos,” but neither of which is the same word which is distinctly used for priests*, that being “hiereus” or “archiereus.” (Heb. 4:15; 10:11) Nor does presbuteros or episkopos denote a unique sacrificial function, and hiereus (as archiereus=chief priests) is used in distinction to elders in such places as Lk. 22:66; Acts 22:5.
The only priesthood (hierateuma) of the church is that of all believers as they function as priests, offering both gifts and sacrifices response to being forgiven of sins, in thanksgiving and service to God and for others. (1Pt. 2:5; Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9)
Jewish elders as a body existed before the priesthood, most likely as heads of household or clans, and being an elder did not necessarily make one a Levitical priest (Ex. 3:16,18, 18:12; 19:7; 24:1; Num. 11:6; Dt. 21:2; 22:5-7; 31:9,28; 32:7; Josh. 23:2; 2Chron. 5:4; Lam. 1:9; cf. Mt. 21:13; 26:47) or a high priest, offering both gifts and sacrifices for sins. (Heb. 5:1) A priest could be an elder, and could elders exercise some priestly functions such as praying and laying hands on sacrifices, but unlike presbuteros and episkopos. the two were not the same in language or in function, as one could be a elder without formally being a priest. Even the Latin word (sacerdos) which corresponds to priest has no morphological or lingual relationship with the Latin word for “presbyter.”
Despite the Scriptural distinctions in titles, Rome made the word “presbyteros” (elders) to mean “priest” by way of functional equivalence, supposing that the bishops turn bread and wine into the literal body and blood of Christ which is then physically consumed. However, the elements used in the commemoration of the Lord death (“the Lord's supper,” and called the “Eucharist” by Catholics) symbolically represent Christ death (see here), and the sacrifice involved in this is one which all communicants are to engage in, that of unselfish love for His body, the church (as shown here in the exegesis of 1Cor. 11:17-33). Moreover, despite Rome's centralization of this act as a cardinal doctrine, little is taught on it, the description of the Lord's supper and of disciples breaking bread neither assigns nor infers that pastors engaged in transforming the elements, but simply show it to be a communal meal. Thus formally identifying a distinctive class of Christian clergy as “priests” rather than “presbyters” (elders) is not only grammatically incorrect by is functionally unwarranted and unscriptural.
As the web site of International Standard Version (not my preferred translation) states in response to a query on this issue,
No Greek lexicons or other scholarly sources suggest that "presbyteros" means "priest" instead of "elder". The Greek word is equivalent to the Hebrew ZAQEN, which means "elder", and not priest. You can see the ZAQENIM described in Exodus 18:21-22 using some of the same equivalent Hebrew terms as Paul uses in the GK of 1&2 Timothy and Titus. Note that the ZAQENIM are NOT priests (i.e., from the tribe of Levi) but are rather men of distinctive maturity that qualifies them for ministerial roles among the people.
Therefore the NT equivalent of the ZAQENIM cannot be the Levitical priests. The Greek "presbyteros" (literally, the comparative of the Greek word for "old" and therefore translated as "one who is older") thus describes the character qualities of the "episkopos". The term "elder" would therefore appear to describe the character, while the term "overseer" (for that is the literal rendering of "episkopos") connotes the job description.
To sum up, far from obfuscating the meaning of "presbyteros", our rendering of "elder" most closely associates the original Greek term with its OT counterpart, the ZAQENIM. ...we would also question the fundamental assumption that you bring up in your last observation, i.e., that "the church has always had priests among its ordained clergy". We can find no documentation of that claim. (http://isv.org/catacombs/elders.htm)
I know that Christ is always with me— unless I sin.
I was talk to RNmom about the Physical presences in the stomach and intestines. I think she understood.
So Christ wasn’t the only sinless human you say? Really?
So tell us about your odd claims that Catholics are idolaters, that those who celebrate Easter and Christmas are pagans and your strange claims that the idea of church on Sunday is a man made tradition and apparently not either Christian or Biblical. Go ahead, explain what odd things separate you from 99% of Christendom and why somehow you and your odd views are relevant here?
As soon as you prove you can smash that statue of Mary or one of your supposed “saints”. Surely you could do that if you don’t idolize them.
In the early Church a member of a group (usually of priests) who advised a bishop. Together they formed the presbytery, which, under a bishop, was the governing body of a community. The presbyter having no official duties, he was often commissioned by the bishop to teach, celebrate Mass, and baptize. Presbyters were usually of advanced age and, like a bishop, chosen by the people. Their rank was above that of deacons but inferior to that of bishops. There was no restriction on their number.
The priesthood, as the second rank of holy orders above the diaconate and below the episcopate. (Etym. Greek presbyteros, elder.)
An authorized mediator who offers a true sacrifice in acknowledgment of God's supreme dominion over human beings and in expiation for their sins. A priest's mediation is the reverse of that of a prophet, who communicates from God to the people. A priest mediates from the people to God.
Christ, who is God and man, is the first, last, and greatest priest of the New Law. He is the eternal high priest who offered himself once and for all on the Cross, a victim of infinite value, and he continually renews that sacrifice on the altar through the ministry of the Church.
Within the Church men who are specially ordained as priests to consecrate and offer the body and blood of Christ in the Mass. The Apostles were the first ordained priests, when on Holy Thursday night Christ told them to do in his memory what he had just done at the Last Supper. All priests and bishops trace their ordination to the Apostles. Their second essential priestly power, to forgive sins, was conferred by Christ on Easter Sunday, when he told the Apostles, "For those whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven; for those whose sins you retain, they are retained" (John 20-22,23).
All the Christian faithful, however, also share in the priesthood by their baptismal character. They are enabled to offer themselves in sacrifice with Christ through the Eucharistic liturgy. They offer the Mass in the sense that they internally unite themselves with the outward offering made by the ordained priest alone.
ROTFLMAO! You are funny.
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.