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.
Just on other discussion boards, they are very bold in this belief and use strongs concordance to claim they are right
There is a few people here on FR I have encountered who hold the strange heretical belief of the serpent seed as well
Here is a video of Murray talking about this , it's creepy , but this guy has a huge following and claims solo Scripture too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmr94n-0ck8
GACK!
If that were true there would be full unity against Abortion , Gay marriage, contraception, etc....
You know full well that those who claim Bible alone differ on these issues,dear Sister.
We have people in the Catholic faith who do it their own way too, but at least they can be shown a long history of clear teaching against these things along with clear dogma to show them they are in error
Look, I am not trying to be argumentative nor am I trying to cause anger or strife.
Nor am I- You're one of the easiest protestant I know to converse with even though we disagree often
I have the Holy Spirit within me because He has changed me completely in ways I could not if I wanted to or would not if I could.
I believe the same thing and believe that Christ led me out of being protestant to become Catholic again
I have decided for this to be my last post on this thread, so if you want to say anything further to me please freepmail me or start another thread with topic of dogma
I wish you a Blessed day!
Thanks for your reply, Alamo-Girl, and for buttressing the argument with scripture. One of the primary problems of Replacement Theology, which held sway in all of Christendom for so very long, is the idea that we as Christians have been given authority to change that which was declared everlasting.
Quite to the contrary, those everlasting things are the throttle and the evidence against those who claim license in Yeshua.
It seems all to evident to me that the same reliance on oral law that the Pharisees laid their claim to power in has been repeated point-for-point in the traditions of Christianity.
Thanks for the great post!
Why tell me not to do something I didn't do?
Obviously you knew what I meant because you agreed with it in your last sentence. Therefore there was no need for the rest of the post.
Congratulations. You are now on your way to understanding why your interpretation of those verses can't be the right one. What if two sets of Christians put a binding on the same thing for two different results?
It doesn't work.
Therefore, a different interpretation is called for and needs to be examined because obviously the Catholic interpretation of that verse is not possible the way they interpret it.
You know full well that those who claim Bible alone differ on these issues,dear Sister.
GACK!! yourself.
You can't even begin to pretend that Catholics are in full unity on those issues.
Just look at Catholic's voting patterns.
The official position of the RCC is clear on those issues, just as other church's official positions are, HOWEVER, get down to the laity, and it's a whole nother ball of wax.
For one thing, Evangelical Christians as a block vote far more conservatively on those issues than Catholics as a block.
You know full well that those who claim Bible alone differ on these issues,dear Sister.
As do Catholics and even the priests.
Hey, daniel, Yo! We need your stats.....
We have people in the Catholic faith who do it their own way too, but at least they can be shown a long history of clear teaching against these things along with clear dogma to show them they are in error
Christians don't need *church policy*. They have the Bible which outdates any church to give them clear teaching on abortion(murder), gay *marriage* and a whole host of other moral issues. There's simply not a lot of ways of interpreting *Thous shalt not murder* and *Thou shalt not commit adultery* and *Thous shalt not steal*.
Nobody needs a church to tell them that when they have the Word of God.
It is but it does not say anything about your hatred of Christ on the Cross.
The scripture does not say "simply". It says "believe". The rest of the gospel lists the works that are incorporated in the authentic Christian belief, and it also flatly opposes salvation by faith alone (James 2:17-26).
But you did not explain why is it that God needs our works if they aren't necessary for our salvation.
You wrote something about feast days. Fascinating, and thank you, but I am not really interested in your interpretation of the scripture.
The Protestants figure "born again" to be a certain impulse of a new believer, and I believe, like the Gospel teaches that born again is one who got baptized (John 3:5). Hence the apparent contradiction, due to your co-opting of the scriptural language improperly.
a broad brush which ignores history
My brush is based on what I see from the posts on this forum. Naturally, different people are infected with Protestantism in different degrees of severity and lethality.
Few converts today know much about Luther or Calvin
The less, the better, but shouldn't they be concerned by their historical teachers fallacies?
That is as absurd as saying that praying to the One True God and reading the OT Scriptures
Baptism is a sacrament so it acts on its own power. Reading the Bible is not a sacrament.
know of what i speak
You don't. You have some experience but knowledge of Catholicism you don't have, as for example, you would not make the previous ignorant remark about baptism.
Rather than the 45 minute quickie called Mass, the singing in the typical evangelical church has just ended by then, followed by a 45 minute sermon
I did not say it's short; I say it's worthless as it is not a sacrament and not true to the Holy Scripture.
i must seek to go wherever the truth further leads
Good luck. Thank you for your company.
So what do you do? Leave verse 19 hanging out there all by itself? That makes no sense. I follows verse 18 and He is adding to what He said in verse 18 and clarifying the extent of who He is speaking of.
>>This is also nonsense because then what you and Metmom figure to bind or loos binds on me, and in heaven.<<
Nope. You aren’t a part of my local gathering of church members. No do I think you are of metmom’s. Catholics need to stop that nonsense that there is some world wide governing body of fallible men. If you go back and read that you will see He was talking about local churches consisting of believing individuals that worshipped together and looked out for each others welfare and spiritual needs.
>>Here you go again. First, "bishops" (plural) already suggests several cities.>>>p> There I go again? Are you kidding me. I post about the elders of the church at Ephesus and you change the term to “bishops”. And then you say there you go again? The word is elders which simply means those who are older and have been in the church the longest and have been chosen as part of that churches leadership. Once again. Catholics need to kick the RCC thinking to the curb and read scripture.
>>Second, every time anyone is saying anything in the Holy Scripture it is said to someone in particular.<<
Seriously now. So none of what Jesus or the apostles said when they were talking or writing applies to us today? Really? Where did the RCC get the idea that succession of Popes followed the apostles?
>>Trust and love the Holy Scripture who God gave you for instruction<<
That’s exactly what we do and it’s what keeps us from making the errors that the RCC teaches.
That is good, however, it places you at odds with other defenders of Rome, but that, along with multitude other examples, is part of the diverse fruit of Rome
Also, I do not defend fallible Catholics but the Holy Catholic Church.
And some you disagree with express the same in disallowing other interpretations of what Rome teaches.
>declared herself infallible<
Matthew 18:18, Acts 20:28.
Which ignores what i said, as this in an interpretation which only has authority because according to Rome's interpretation (decree) only her interpretation can be correct in any conflict. That is the basis for RC assurance, not Scripture, else they would be as Protestants.
> i see not even an acknowledgment of your error<
Because there is no error.
If you cannot see what your error was, plus continue to fight a straw man, then maybe you are too overwhelmed and this has gone on long enough, while the fraud remains that of Rome. I have other things waiting.
Well then I suppose I won’t look to see you commenting on my posts then.
Thank God for your heart for truth and encouragement. The way to realization of truth is that which is revealed in Scripture, which was not on the basis of an assuredly infallible magisterium as per Rome, but by truth claims having Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. May Christianity better exhibit more in these dark days.
Verses Matthew 18:15-18 speak of conflict resolution and establish the Church as the final authority. Since the binding is in heaven it is universal authority of the Catholic (i.e. universal) Church and not merely a local church.
Verses 19-20 speak not of conflict but of consent: they explain that God answers every prayer of a faithful Catholic.
there is some world wide governing body of fallible men
Sure it is, since the scripture tells us that it is binding in heaven. Or do you believe there are local heavens also?
I post about the elders of the church at Ephesus and you change the term to “bishops”
Because the scripture says "επισκοπους". That is "bishops". "Elders" is your fake translation -- even most Protestant translations distinguish "επισκοπος" from "πρεσβυτερος", -- they translate the latter "elder", never the former. King James edition calls them "overseers" in that verse.
simply means those who are older and have been in the church the longest
Start with a fake translation, arrive at meaning not in the text. So, those old people "rule the Church of God". Regardles how we call them, looks like they are authority over the Church. Not your semi-literate pastor who plans counterscriptural nonsense in your head because he is not sure what words mean.
Seriously now.
Just re-read my post. Seriously. Or ask someone to explain it to you. That WAS my point: all of scripture is said to someone in particular and meant for all of us. Including the one spoken in Ephesus.
Well, read our Bear friend interpretation, posted nearby, and try not to laugh.
1 Corinthians 14:12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.
"May Christianity better exhibit more in these dark days."
Isaiah 59:19 So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him
It seems that many of the anti-Catholics and ex-Catholics here have spent their time reading Loraine Boettner’s book. Same arguments, no real sources, no actual Catholic teachings. Just slander and lies.
Try reading Keating’s book which takes that bit of calumny apart. It’s called Catholicism and Fundamentalism.
If your mind is open you may actually learn something.
Has anyone here seen TBN lately? They seem to be missing from some cable networks.
In other words, you fail to express what we are supposed to assumed, or you are looking for a way to avoid admitting a contradiction by taking the offense. Again.
My brush is based on what I see..
And which is understandable but is the problem when dealing with that which differs.
. The less, the better, but shouldn't they be concerned by their historical teachers fallacies?
Indeed, which is why they differ in rejecting so many of the holdovers from Rome.
Baptism is a sacrament so it acts on its own power. Reading the Bible is not a sacrament.
And the Jews were the ones who engaged in baptism first, if not fully having the same meaning, nor do most Prots regard baptism to be the same as Rome's. And very few intend to do te same as Rome intends to do in baptism, which intent is necessary for reception of a sacrament (and as you cannot know the minsters heart, full assurance of valid reception can be elusive for some), but therein is more interpretation.
Yet regardless of Rome's definition, the principle remains that the practice of something that was used by a prior party does not necessarily make one to be of that party, as per your argument. But at least Rome teaches that you do get an "indulgence" for reverently reading Bible.
You don't. You have some experience but knowledge of Catholicism you don't have, as for example, you would not make the previous ignorant remark about baptism.
That an argument by assertion must be used is understandable, while it is you who more than once has confessed ignorance of at least what official teaching states in recent exchanges, but which i have provide.
And your attempt here to make Protestants into Catholics because they baptize souls under an understanding and intent that is different than Rome's remains absurd. In reality, it is a denial of Rome's baptism and in perhaps a majority of cases it is occurs after RC baptism and with a different intent, while try to plead "ex opere operato" will force you to do more backtracking and into various interpretations.
I did not say it's short; I say it's worthless...
As are your mandated assertions for Rome and against whatever opposes her, to those who seek to establish truth after the Scriptural manner, which was not under the premise of an assuredly infallible perpetual office of men, as per Rome, but by persuading souls by the "manifestation of the truth." (2Cor. 4:2)
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.