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.
OUCH!
wemusskeepthepreciousss!it’s rrrr’s,rrrr’s it isss an we wantsssit!
Likely, but basically it's got more to do with whether what the person is saying makes the Catholic church look good or not.
If what he says makes the church look good, he is a properly catechized, properly credentialed leading whatever, and of course, he's ALWAYS telling the truth.
If what he says makes the church look bad, he's not properly credentialed, not a leading anything, has an axe to grind, has been chastised by some church leader, is not a leading anything.
Because you know, only the good stuff about Catholicism is true. Anything that casts the church in a bad light simply isn't or cannot be true, even if it is. It's all slander and calumny because the church, it's leaders and priests are all perfect. The RCC never does anything bad or wrong, dontcha know?
They are not a mechanical result, like heat causing sweat or wine causing cheerfulness. If you choose to do these works, your have authentic faith, and if you don't you don't (James 2:17-26). Your quotes, if they refer to faith at all refer to that kind of well-formed faith. John 5, for example, goes on to say
And they that have done good things, shall come forth unto the resurrection of life; but they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment (John 5:29)
Jesus would not have said 5:24 (which you quote) and 5:29 (which you seem unaware of) in the same lesson if He meant truncated Protestant faith in the first quote.
Your other quotes speak of sanctification, -- which is precisely the process of growing in faith through choosing good works.
If you don't understand this you don't understand the scripture. Seeing that you keep posting them as if they prove your point indicates that you probably do not understand them.
LOL!!!
LOL. Matthew 28:20 says "whatsoever I have commanded you". Now how the Church knows what that encompasses I understand: she has an uninterrupted succession of faith from them. How do you know what Jesus did not command , -- I don't understand.
They listen and obey the words of 'man' instead of JESUS, The Savior. There is no salvation outside of Jesus - man tells them 'man/church' saves them. How dumb can anyone be to believe man's words over the Words of Jesus? Dumber than dirt and they continue it with 'trying to convince' others that that's the right way! Every cult does that.
........It ALL about JESUS, The Way, The Truth, The Life.
To them it's what 'man' tells them so that leaves them with having the wide Wrong way, a Lie, and Death - no eternal life with Jesus. They didn't choose life/blessings but choose death/curses.
"This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live." Deut 30:19
May God's Word be true and every man a liar!
Right. This is my point also: works are not separate from faith but are a single thing, often called simply "faith".
Outside of the 'religious' community - which is the right place to be! Outside of Catholicism, Mormonism, Islamism, Buddhism with it's man made teachings!.
It is ALL about JESUS the Christ! "No man can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:44
Those 'ism's' ignored the warning - they listen to 'man' calling them and were deceived, so no raising up but going down.
In fact this poster claims ALL organized religions are wrong and that even venerating a simple Cross is pagan. Given that this is the point of view from which he views the world, why should anyone pay attention to his odd, often incomplete and often misread cut-n-pastes?
John 3:14-18 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. 16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
John 5:24 24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
John 6:28-29 28 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”
John 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.
John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
John 7:38 38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’”
John 11:25-26 25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”
They have to keep man dazzled with 'BS'.
"But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity that is in Christ." 2 Cor 11:3
SSDD
The point that i made for which i posted these charges remains, and the issue is the truthfulness of them. In that regards Sungenis has debated other RC apologists such as Mark Shea.
And which is a further testimony to the active diversity allowed in Rome.
As regards being instructed by his bishop to not use the word Catholic in the name of his organization, under more “following through,” i find this leads to more controversy between the camps that may be of interest:
http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/02/bishop-rhoades-sets-record-straight_21.html abd
from http://www.culturewars.com/2008/Harrison.htm:
1. On June 29, 2007 Dr. Sungenis’ ordinary, the Most Rev. Kevin C. Rhoades, Bishop of Harrisburg, wrote him a letter containing the following directive that would be classed canonically as a singular precept (cf. c. 49). It reads as follows:
I hereby direct you immediately to desist from commenting on the Jewish people and Judaism both online and in all other publications. I ask that you further remove all commentary presently contained on the website Catholic Apologetics International pertaining to Judaism and the Jewish people by July 20, 2007. If you do not comply with these directives I will publicly advise the faithful of my directives and further declare that Catholic Apologetics International lacks the appropriate ecclesiastical consent for the use of the name Catholic and I will direct that the name ‘Catholic’ should not be used due to the above-mentioned concerns about your writings.
2. The above precept, however, actually involves a violation of church law and constitutes an act of injustice on the part of the bishop. Why? Because the bishop manifestly failed to comply adequately with c. 50 before he issued it. This canon states: “Before issuing a singular decree [a term which here includes singular precepts, cf. the wording of c. 49], an authority is to seek out the necessary information and proofs, and, insofar as possible, to hear those whose rights can be injured” (emphasis added). Bishop Rhoades letter indicates he had indeed looked at material critical of Jewish positions and activity on Dr. Sungenis’ website, and received complaints about it.[1] But the italicized words above indicate that canonically – and indeed, this is also a plain matter of natural justice – that is by no means enough. It is illicit for a church authority to impose a penalty or restriction without first listening to those persons whose rights are at stake, wherever possible.
Now, the first of such persons, obviously, is the one for whom the penalty or restriction is being contemplated. But in this case, even though it would have been not only possible, but quite easy, to hear Dr. Sungenis’ point of view prior to formally commanding him to be silent on Jewish issues, the bishop made no attempt to do so, whether in writing or by summoning him to the chancery for a discussion of the problem.
The command therefore fell upon Dr. Sungenis like the proverbial ‘bolt from the blue’. He has assured me in writing of the total lack of prior consultation, and indeed, this omission is virtually evident from the wording of Bishop Rhoades’ letter itself: it treats the whole matter ‘from the ground up’ and does not mention any previous admonitions or discussions as background to the new prohibition – as it surely would have if such had ever taken place.
That is different than what he is saying, and that you first denied, that anyone and Prots can be born again as Prots by repentant faith in the Risen Lord Jesus.
And in addition to the official teaching which affirms that, and far more broadly to your consequent very restricted sense, and speaking of JP2, we have this pope's understanding :
John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 84), May 25, 1995, Speaking of non-Catholic “Churches”:
83. I have mentioned the will of the Father and the spiritual space in which each community hears the call to overcome the obstacles to unity. All Christian Communities know that, thanks to the power given by the Spirit, obeying that will and overcoming those obstacles are not beyond their reach. All of them in fact have martyrs for the Christian faith.137
Despite the tragedy of our divisions, these brothers and sisters have preserved an attachment to Christ and to the Father so radical and absolute as to lead even to the shedding of blood...
84....While for all Christian communities the martyrs are the proof of the power of grace, they are not the only ones to bear witness to that power. Albeit in an invisible way, the communion between our Communities, even if still incomplete, is truly and solidly grounded in the full communion of the Saints—those who, at the end of a life faithful to grace, are in communion with Christ in glory. These Saints come from all the Churches and Ecclesial Communities which gave them entrance into the communion of salvation...
This universal presence of the Saints is in fact a proof of the transcendent power of the Spirit. It is the sign and proof of God's victory over the forces of evil which divide humanity. - http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html
John Paul II, Tertio Millennio Adveniente (# 37), Nov. 10, 1994: The witness to Christ borne even to the shedding of blood has become a common inheritance of Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and Protestants, as Pope Paul VI pointed out in his Homily for the Canonization of the Ugandan Martyrs.(22)...
Perhaps the most convincing form of ecumenism is the ecumenism of the saints and of the martyrs. The communio sanctorum speaks louder than the things which divide us. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_10111994_tertio-millennio-adveniente_en.html
Scottish Presbyterian (1795 – 1863) and Westminster commentator Robert Shaw states,
Good works are essentially prerequisite to an admission into heaven. Though they do not merit everlasting life, yet they are indispensably necessary in all who are “heirs of the grace of life.” Believers, “being made free from sin, have their fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.”-Rom. vi. 22 [from his commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 16, “of good works”]
See also http://www.peacebyjesus.net/reformation_faith_works.html
In addition, present day evangelical Calvinist Oxford theologian Alister McGrath points out,
“It can be shown that a distinction came to be drawn between the concepts of merit and congruity; while man cannot be said to merit justification by any of his actions, his preparation for justification could be said to make his subsequent justification ‘congruous’ or ‘appropriate.’”
Speaking of such preparation, the English Presbyterian clergyman John Flavel (1627–1691) stated, “The foolish child would pluck the apple while it is green; but when it is ripe it drops of its own accord and is more pleasant and wholesome” (The Mystery of Providence p. 139).
The famous Anglican preacher George Whitefield recounted, “I did then preach much upon original sin, repentance, the nature and necessity of conversion, in a close, examinatory and distinguished way; laboring in the meantime to sound the trumpet of God’s judgments, and alarm the secure by the terrors of the Lord, as well as to affect them by other topics of persuasion: which method was sealed by the Holy Spirit in the conviction and conversion of a considerable number of persons, at various times and in different places in that part of the county.” - George Whitefield by Arnold Dallimore, (Carlisle, Pennsylvania, Banner of Truth), Volume L 417.
And rather than the easy believism which Rome fosters (in which souls are usually considered to have been born again as infants thru proxy faith, and who promotes confidence in her power and their merit, which leads to liberal souls , who are treated as members in life and death, having a false hope of salvation), in Puritan faith there was often a tendency to make the way to the cross too narrow.
As described in an account of Purtians during the early American period,
“..the experience of true conversion is much more impressive than their disagreement over related issues.
They had, like most preachers of the Gospel, a certain difficulty in determining what we might call the ‘conversion level’, the level of difficulty above which the preacher may be said to be erecting barriers to the Gospel and below which he may be said to be encouraging men to enter too easily into a mere delusion of salvation. Contemporary critics, however, agree that the New England pastors set the level high.
Nathaniel Ward, who was step-son to Richard Rogers and a distinguished Puritan preacher himself, is recorded as responding to Thomas Hooker’s sermons on preparation for receiving Christ in conversion with, ‘Mr. Hooker, you make as good Christians before men are in Christ as ever they are after’, and wishing, ‘Would I were but as good a Christian now as you make men while they are preparing for Christ.’” http://www.the-highway.com/Early_American_Bauckham.html
Comment on john 6:28-29
You do; eh?
Because the church told you how.
Circular logic.
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.
