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.
So would you say then that Paul and Silas lied to the jailor?
Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved, and your house.
>>They were told to "work out their salvation with fear and trembling"<<
“Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” John 6:28-29
It's not a matter of worthiness. It's a matter of trust in what God has revealed in His word.
Mar_11:24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.
Any excuse to explain away why the Catholic church does not adhere to Scripture, which it, ironically, claims it wrote.
Only now they consider what it *wrote* originally to be heresy.
That must mean that the early RCC, as they claim the early church to be, was in heresy and wrote heresy.
If that were the case, how could it be trusted then and now?
That's what happens when you make yourself your own pope. You have to justify changing things somehow so you think up something new and give it a educated sounding name.
Your hasty accusation review is a result of superficial reading, which is not the first time. I will be back shortly to provide more than is needed.
We discussed that before, but perhaps not this particular quote. That belief “on Lord Jesus Christ” must be a complete, well-formed belief resulting in good works (cf Matthew 25:31-46), not a Protestant once-saved-always-saved, I-don’t-need-the-Church-to-be-saved, or any other heretical truncation.
Wait, what????
COMPLETELY forgiven you?
As in ALL your sins, even the ones you haven't committed yet?
You have given me eternal life; You have given me the perfect righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ so I am now justified.
that I am seated with the Lord Jesus Christ in the heavenlies. I take my place with Him in the heavenlies
I thought you wouldn't know that until you died? What's this now? Now you KNOW you have eternal life and that Paul was right in Ephesians when he says we ARE seated in the heavenly places with Christ?
Keep praying like that and you'll be a fine born again Christian; free in Christ, eternally secure and KNOWING it.
All those actions are the result of salvation not the cause of it. Besides there are many people who do not believe in Christ at all who feed the poor etc. The Catholic attitude of effort based salvation is totally contrary to scripture.
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life." (John 5:24)
Hebrews 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. 1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
The means by which we are saved is an unwavering faith in Jesus.
John 6:38-40 Jesus said, “I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day”
Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one."
Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,"
Rom. 5:1, "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,"
You cannot lose God's love. God IS love. For Him to not love would be for Him to deny His own character, the essence of who He IS.
You think making a mistake or sinning means that God doesn't love you any more?
That he's going to cast you out? He who knows our frame and remembers that we are dust?
Do parents disown their own flesh and blood children because those children disobey, even when it's defiant, staring you in the eye and proclaiming *NO!* defiance?
OOops, too bad kid, you're not part of my family any more.
Give me a break. That is NOT a father's love.
Catholicism has way too lopsided a view of God, way too heavy on the OT, old covenant God of judgment and not enough on the NT, new covenant God of mercy and grace and love.
I have yet to meet a Catholic who is sure enough of God's love for them as to be confident that they are accepted by Him even when they do sin.
Some people don’t learn from their mistakes.
Scripture tells us hundreds of times that happiness is a consequence of following the Lord. What is striking is so very unhappy those who perpetually attack the Church seem. Unfortunately, the more time I spend with them the less happy I am too.
Peace be with you
But you just said in post 3817:
It is noble that you would try to provide Metmom a fig leaf, but wiki has a very transparent revision history. The following is located at the bottom of the linked page:
This page was last modified on 15 December 2012 at 21:47.
So which is it NL? In the effort to smear Metmom over a trifle, you now have to resort to this and the web weaved over who deceived?
But you just said in post 3719:(corrected)
It is noble that you would try to provide Metmom a fig leaf, but wiki has a very transparent revision history. The following is located at the bottom of the linked page:
This page was last modified on 15 December 2012 at 21:47.
So which is it NL? In the effort to smear Metmom over a trifle, you now have to resort to this and the web weaved over who deceived?
I’ve been vindicated. Elsie is a hero.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2966953/posts?page=3790#3790
Of course, there has been no apology forthcoming for the false witness that was borne against me, but I didn’t expect it anyway and I’m not demanding it either.
> "according to a leading Roman Catholic apologist,"
Leading? Give me a break. You are citing a blog in which your own post is making that accusation. You don't even bother to name him or state what qualifies him as a "leading" apologist. I expected better from you.<
I wish I could say that I expected better from you, but this is not the first time you have rashly mase a false accusation. It was not simply my post that is making those charges against JP2, but Robert Sungenis, who is named as the subject of the blog of the 2nd (dated) source link and whose name you would have seen if you had read it much, and in which you will seen the material from which i compiled my list.
And which blog provided the 1st link which i gave as the source, which was to a page of the authors web site, www.catholicintl.com, but which page is now dead. My error was assuming i also had actually listed the author myself, and not checking the link i had copied some time ago, to see if it was working.
But in the blog post you will see that Sungenis makes the following charges as one paragraph, which i list here by line for easier reading, and that the material corresponds to my list.
I didn’t invite pagans to pray to their false gods. I condemned it for the last 10 years in numerous articles and lectures.
I didn’t shuffle pedophiles and homosexuals from parish to parish. I wrote a plethora of papers against it.
I didn’t give them safe haven at the Vatican. I wrote several papers exposing the Vatican sin‐sanctuary.
I didn’t exonerate Luther and allow the Luther‐Catholic Joint Declaration, signed by a high‐ranking Cardinal, to explicitly state that “man is justified by faith alone.”
I wrote a book against it titled Not By Faith Alone that has a Catholic imprimatur.
I didn’t go against the tradition by putting women in leadership positions and dispensing with head coverings.
I wrote papers against it and sent them to the Vatican. I didn’t disobey the Fatima request to consecrate Russia.
I wrote papers exposing the cowardliness of the last few popes who disobeyed heaven on this point.
I didn’t protect Bishop Marcinkus and his entourage of financial hoodlums in the Vatican. I exposed it.
I didn’t accept the tenets of evolution. I exposed it for the fraud it is.
I didn’t make it appear as if God has given man universal salvation by using ambiguous language in my writings, and I never suggested that hell might not exist. I wrote papers saying that the Catholic Church has one task, which is to preach the Gospel of the Last Four things – the same Gospel our tradition preached.
I didn’t kiss the Koran,
or suggest that the Jews still have their Old Covenant,
or write a catechism that contained theological errors and ambiguities.
I didn’t change the canonization laws,
or the marriage laws,
or the capital punishment laws,
or laws about women’s roles,
or any law. I wrote papers showing that our tradition and our Scripture were against all of these novelties.
I didn’t watch scantily clad women dance while Mass was being said.
I didn’t marginalize and ignore the pleas of a bishop who was merely trying to preserve the tradition (Archbishop Levebre) but instead threw Assisi in his face.
I didn’t fail to excommunicate heretical bishops and priests who were spouting heresies. I decried their heresies.
These and many more aberrations happened by express order of John Paul II, yet Mr. Dejak condemns me for pointing them all out.
As this link is not working, and given your accusatory nature demonstrated in the past, you may charge that this is a fabrication. However, here http://www.catholicintl.com/index.php/component/content/article/54-pastoral/268-another-failed-attempt-to-defend-assisi-and-other-scandalous-events-in-the-pontificate-of-john-paul-ii- he says these or like things (my list on left compared with above source)
|
1. Invited pagans to pray to their false gods. |
Whether it was kissing the Koran; |
|
2. Looked the other way while his clerics raped his children, and ordained faggots to say his Masses |
praying with animists; |
|
3. Shuffled pedophiles and homosexuals from parish to parish, even giving them safe haven at the Vatican. |
refusing to allow a statue of Our Lady at Assisi but allowing a Buddah statue; |
|
4. Subjected those Catholic who dare protest to droning quotes from Vatican I and Lumen Gentium about “submission” |
discouraging Catholic proselytism toward other religions; |
|
5. Watched scantily clad women dance while Mass was being said. |
praising Martin Luther as a great theologian but apologizing for past popes of the Inquisition; |
|
6. Suggested that hell might not exist. |
allowing a cardinal to sign the Lutheran/Catholic Joint Declaration that said “man is justified by faith alone;” |
|
8. Kissed the Koran |
giving communion to non-Catholic politicians |
|
9. Made it appear as if God has given man universal salvation by using ambiguous language in official writings |
harboring bishops involved in the pedophile scandal or ignoring accusations of pedophilia and homosexuality among his clerics; |
|
10. Accepted the tenets of evolution. |
removing the excommunication of Masons from Canon Law; |
|
11. Wrote a catechism that contained theological errors and ambiguities. |
saying the Old Covenant was never revoked; |
|
12. Changed the canonization laws: marriage laws, capital punishment laws, laws about women’s roles. |
condoning the idea that Scripture contains historical errors; |
|
13. Went against the tradition by putting women in leadership positions and dispensing with head coverings. |
having “holy” cow dung placed on his forehead in honor of the god Shiva; |
|
14. Failed to excommunicate heretical bishops and priests who were spouting heresies. |
allowing Voodoo witch doctors and snake charmers to pray to their false gods; |
|
15. Protected Bishop Marcinkus and his entourage of financial hoodlums in the Vatican. |
honoring the Dalai Lama; |
|
16. Ignored the pleas of a bishop who was merely trying to preserve the tradition (Archbishop Levebre) |
wearing the religious garb of pagan religions; |
|
17. Exonerated Luther |
downplaying traditional Marian doctrines and interpretations of Scripture applying to her; |
|
18. Allowed the Luther‐Catholic Joint Declaration, signed by a high‐ranking Cardinal, to explicitly state that “man is justified by faith alone.” |
failing to consecrate Russia; |
|
19. Disobeyed the Fatima request to consecrate Russia. — http://www.catholicintl.com/articles/Response%20to%20John%20Dejak%20of%20The%20Wanderer.pdf (now dead) http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/04/sungenis-alone.html |
seeking to redefine and lessen the primacy of the papacy for the sake of ecumenism; |
|
having scantily clad women perform dances at his masses, etc., http://www.catholicintl.com/index.php/component/content/article/54-pastoral/268-another-failed-attempt-to-defend-assisi-and-other-scandalous-events-in-the-pontificate-of-john-paul-ii- |
Moreover, it is easy to establish that Sugenis made such attacks, and was known for so doing, and was defended by some but condemned by others for so doing. In regards to the debate between Sungenis and Mr. Dejak which is where the catalog of papal offenses appears, a leading Catholic web apologist, Dave Armstrong, in lamenting the radicalism of Sugenis, provides many of his words here http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2011/04/robert-sungenis-embraces-radtradism-and.html:
The sadder fact is there exists circumstantial evidence that he is personally culpable, either in allowing his bishops to shuffle incriminated priests from diocese to diocese or in the whisking away of these same bishops to the Vatican for safe haven (e.g., Cardinal Bernard Law who was given sanctuary at the Vatican before he could be prosecuted by the civil authorities in Boston). By and large, John Paul II seems to have turned a blind eye to the heinous sins occurring against little Catholic boys. The recent case of Fr. Marciel Maciel Degollado, patron of the Legionaires, speaks for itself. Maciel was a personal friend of the Holy Father, but had been molesting little boys for decades as well as fathering children from several different women. . . . While the homosexual/pedophile scandal was taking place on John Paul II’s moral doorstep, the promotion of what seemed to be raw paganism was occurring at his Assisi interreligious prayer meetings.
There are problems and excesses in almost every area John Paul II touched (his appointing of liberal and doctrinally suspect bishops; his novel Theology of the Body; his ambiguous statements in certain encyclicals that seem to lean toward universal salvation;
his tendency toward collegiality; his campaign against capital punishment by confusing it with the abortion issue; his promotion of the excesses of the charismatic movement; the perennial problems with World Youth Day, etc.). In the end, the only good things I am proud to say John Paul II accomplished was his resistance toward Liberation theology in the early 1980s; his stand against communism; and the writing of his apostolic letter in 1994, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, which barred women from being priests. The world loved John Paul II, but it was not because he was heroically faithful to the Church’s tradition. They loved him because of his captivating charisma, but they know nothing about the moral and doctrinal problems that plagued the Church during his pontificate...
If you grasp all the deviant theological and moral aberrations of John Paul II listed above and end up calling me a “false prophet” for pointing them out, then the delusion is yours, not mine. I find it amusing that Mr. Dejak goes to “St. Paul” as his authority to condemn me, but wasn’t it St. Paul who upbraided Pope Peter for hypocrisy and perverting the Gospel (Galatians 2:11‐21)? Wasn’t it St. Paul who warned the leaders of the Church not to fall into idol worship and apostasy from the faith (1 Cor 10:1‐12; 3:1‐17; 2Thess 2:1‐11)? St. Paul is my model, not Mr. Dejak’s..
Unfortunately, from what we know of the modernistic tendencies in the theology of Karol Wojtyla, it is not unimaginable that he did accept the contents of the Koran as another means to God. . . . It’s not often that a person overtly denies the essentials of the faith, (provided we are agreed on what those “essentials” are). John Paul II did not come out and say “I deny the existence of God” or “I deny that Christ was God and man,” or anything of that material nature. Instead, he couched his language so that the meaning could often go either way. . . . This is just one small example of the same kinds of problems in many statements from John Paul II...
Not once in 26 years of speaking and writing did John Paul II tell these non-Christian adherents that they would be judged and sent to hell if they did not convert to Christianity. In fact, he suggested that hell may not even exist. That was “the faith” of John Paul II. . . . John Paul II was certainly a “great threat” but it wasn’t against the forces of evil and unbelief. More immorality and doctrinal confusion was unleashed in the pontificate of John Paul II than any other pope in history. . . .
The reality is, John Paul II was one of the worst popes we’ve ever had. Immorality is a terrible offense against God, but when that is compounded by a perversion of the Gospel, then the sins cry out to high heaven for judgment, and that judgment is coming very soon.
As regards Robert Sungenis being a “leading” Catholic apologist, that is a matter of debate depending on opinion of contemporary Internet apologists (that context being assumed), and what kind of Catholic you are, but he may at least be referred to as among the most well known by those who follow such as Hahn, Staples, Keating, Mattics, Shea, Akins, Armstrong, Madrid, etc. As one publishers promoted him, Patrick Madrid teams up with leading Catholic apologists Robert Sungenis and William Marshner... http://www.goodcathinfo.com/NoApologyApologetics.htm
He is the founder of The Bellarmine Report, renamed from the Bellarmine Theological Forum in 2011, and the president of CAI (Catholic Apologetics Int.) Publishing, and author of over 20 books.
However, like some RCs here, he increasingly felt that the reforms brought about by Vatican II were steps away from the traditional teachings and values of the Catholic church, and in the above blog post, (Nov. 2011) he stated that “I no longer consider myself an apologist for the modern Catholic Church. When compared to the Catholic Church of tradition, I have resolved that the modern Catholic Church will be required to stand on its own, for I simply cannot defend it any longer. There are simply too many doctrinal aberrations and moral laxities in today’s Catholic Church that are indefensible.”
He also is charge with having degenerated into anti-Semitism (he says he is against Zionism, but that he is not anti-semitic), and today is considered too radical, but nonetheless he is still popular and active in an SSPX type way, and can be said to be seen by many Trad RCs as a leading Catholic apologist for their cause.
Well I do give you credit for following through and trying but I fear we differ on what we consider leading or even representative. Robert Sungenis has been instructed by his bishop to not use the word Catholic in the name of his organization, He is a noted anti-semite and he believes that the sun and planets orbit the earth. By those standards Martin Luther could be called a leading Catholic apologist.
Peace be with you.
If you had quoted the other poster and then said something like "evidently you believe" it would not have been "mind reading."
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
thankyou,that post sucked!
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.