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 I was spot on in that the contention is still being made that “elder” is the same as “priest” but that’s only in the minds of the Catholics who have been erroneously taught by the RCC in attempting (obviously successfully where Catholics are concerned) to usurp the priesthood of Christ here on earth. That’s the whole contention of this discussion is it not? The contention that there is a hierchy in the Catholic Church that scripture did not sanction?
What translation are you using? It’s really sort of flat, completely lacking in the pacing, rhythm and poetic grandeur of the King James.
It’s functional enough I suppose, with little to quibble about as far as meaning outside of “brightness” instead of glory which carries a whole ‘nother shade of meaning beyond that, but the inspiration just isn’t there. It’s one of my personal favorites in scripture, from both a purely literary standpoint as well as a spiritual one.
Have you ever pondered the meaning of it at length, narses? Natural bodies likened unto seeds, with so many kinds of bodies listed and compared?
“The contention that there is a hierchy in the Catholic Church that scripture did not sanction?”
The Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Anglican Church and to a large degree the Lutheran. But then you have contempt for ALL “organized” religion, right CB? You have stated so many times.
Do you believe that Our Lord left us NO hierarchy? No leadership?
Do you not know the meaning of obfuscation? The definition includes no reference to a lie. You ere again!
“The contention that there is a hierchy {SIC} in the Catholic Church that scripture did not sanction?”
The Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Anglican Church and to a large degree the Lutheran. But then you have contempt for ALL “organized” religion, right CB? You have stated so many times.
Do you believe that Our Lord left us NO hierarchy? No leadership?
Not in the context the RCC would have you believe. Christ is our High Priest, not some carnal guy in a funny hat. No priests were sanctioned in the New Testament, and no hierarchy other than the local elders in each local assembly of believers with scripture and the Holy Spirit to guide them and Christ indwelling each of those in the assembly who have accepted Christ as their only savior.
Obfuscation (or beclouding) is the hiding of intended meaning in communication, making communication confusing, wilfully ambiguous, and harder to interpret.Wrong. But not a surprise that you want to redefine even simple words. Your odd belief system is so out of the mainstream, nothing you say surprises me. After all, you said:
“All of the Lent and Easter abomination is pagan and God clearly condemned it in scripture.”
“God doesn’t smile down on people who celebrate Easter.”
Both "elder" in Protestant translations and "priest" in Catholic translations refer to πρεσβυτερος more or less consistently. My point is that πρεσβυτερος appears functionally in situations a Catholic priest finds himself today. 525.
The discussion we are having now with you is about authority of bishops, not priests; that is in focus in Acts 20:28. The corresponding Greek word is επισκοπος; that credible Protestant translations render as "overseer", even though again, functionally and etymologically it is "bishop".
That’s the whole contention of this discussion is it not?
Not. I do not argue over words. I hate to be rude, but I am not your secretary. Can you please prepare your own briefs if you still wish to argue around?
Both cannot be true. The Council of Lyons:
“We believe in the true resurrection of this flesh that we now possess”
The apostle of Christ, Paul, 1 Cor. 15:44: “It is sown a a natural (physical) body, it is raised up a spiritual body”
Paul contrasts the physical body of flesh and blood with the spiritual body to be given and sums up in vs. 50,
“Flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom”.
Which shall it be? For me, Paul, not the Council.
Again, nothing you say surprises me anymore. That you claim such arrant nonsense may amaze others, but to me it is just another day of watching you torture Scripture to fit your own odd cultic worldview. For the edification of the many Christians who are curious, of COURSE the New Testament, and the Old, define a Priesthood.
Where in the New Testament are "priests" mentioned?
The English word "priest" is derived from the Greek word presbuteros, which is commonly rendered into Bible English as "elder" or "presbyter." The ministry of Catholic priests is that of the presbyters mentioned in the New Testament (Acts 15:6, 23). The Bible says little about the duties of presbyters, but it does reveal they functioned in a priestly capacity.
They were ordained by the laying on of hands (1 Tm 4:14, 5:22), they preached and taught the flock (1 Tm 5:17), and they administered sacraments (Jas 5:13-15). These are the essential functions of the priestly office, so wherever the various forms of presbuteros appear--except, of course, in instances which pertain to the Jewish elders (Mt 21:23, Acts 4:23)--the word may rightly be translated as "priest" instead of "elder" or "presbyter."
Episcopos arises from two words, epi (over) and skopeo (to see), and it means literally "an overseer": We translate it as "bishop." The King James Version renders the office of overseer, episkopen, as "bishopric" (Acts 1:20). The role of the episcopos is not clearly defined in the New Testament, but by the beginning of the second century it had obtained a fixed meaning. There is early evidence of this refinement in ecclesiastical nomenclature in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch (d. A.D. 107), who wrote at length of the authority of bishops as distinct from presbyters and deacons (Epistle to the Magnesians 6:1, 13:1-2; Epistle to the Trallians 2:1-3; Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8:1-2).
The New Testament tendency to use episcopos and presbuteros interchangeably is similar to the contemporary Protestant use of the term "minister" to denote various offices, both ordained and unordained (senior minister, music minister, youth minister). Similarly, the term diakonos is rendered both as "deacon" and as "minister" in the Bible, yet in Protestant churches the office of deacon is clearly distinguished from and subordinate to the office of minister.
In Acts 20:17-38 the same men are called presbyteroi (v. 17) and episcopoi (v. 28). Presbuteroi is used in a technical sense to identify their office of ordained leadership. Episcopoi is used in a non-technical sense to describe the type of ministry they exercised. This is how the Revised Standard Version renders the verses: "And from Miletus he [Paul] . . . called for the elders [presbuteroi]of the church. And when they came to him, he said to them . . . 'Take heed to yourselves and all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you guardians [episcopoi], to feed the church of the Lord.'"
In other passages it's clear that although men called presbuteroi ruled over individual congregations (parishes), the apostles ordained certain men, giving them authority over multiple congregations (dioceses), each with its own presbyters. These were endowed with the power to ordain additional presbyters as needed to shepherd the flock and carry on the work of the gospel. Titus and Timothy were two of those early episcopoi and clearly were above the office of presbuteros. They had the authority to select, ordain, and govern other presbyters, as is evidenced by Paul's instructions: "This is why I left you in Crete . . . that you might appoint elders in every town as I directed you" (Ti 1:5; cf. 1 Tm 5:17-22).
Again, nothing you say surprises me anymore. That you claim such arrant nonsense may amaze others, but to me it is just another day of watching you torture Scripture to fit your own odd cultic worldview. For the edification of the many Christians who are curious, of COURSE the New Testament, and the Old, define a Priesthood.
Where in the New Testament are "priests" mentioned?
The English word "priest" is derived from the Greek word presbuteros, which is commonly rendered into Bible English as "elder" or "presbyter." The ministry of Catholic priests is that of the presbyters mentioned in the New Testament (Acts 15:6, 23). The Bible says little about the duties of presbyters, but it does reveal they functioned in a priestly capacity.
They were ordained by the laying on of hands (1 Tm 4:14, 5:22), they preached and taught the flock (1 Tm 5:17), and they administered sacraments (Jas 5:13-15). These are the essential functions of the priestly office, so wherever the various forms of presbuteros appear--except, of course, in instances which pertain to the Jewish elders (Mt 21:23, Acts 4:23)--the word may rightly be translated as "priest" instead of "elder" or "presbyter."
Episcopos arises from two words, epi (over) and skopeo (to see), and it means literally "an overseer": We translate it as "bishop." The King James Version renders the office of overseer, episkopen, as "bishopric" (Acts 1:20). The role of the episcopos is not clearly defined in the New Testament, but by the beginning of the second century it had obtained a fixed meaning. There is early evidence of this refinement in ecclesiastical nomenclature in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch (d. A.D. 107), who wrote at length of the authority of bishops as distinct from presbyters and deacons (Epistle to the Magnesians 6:1, 13:1-2; Epistle to the Trallians 2:1-3; Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8:1-2).
The New Testament tendency to use episcopos and presbuteros interchangeably is similar to the contemporary Protestant use of the term "minister" to denote various offices, both ordained and unordained (senior minister, music minister, youth minister). Similarly, the term diakonos is rendered both as "deacon" and as "minister" in the Bible, yet in Protestant churches the office of deacon is clearly distinguished from and subordinate to the office of minister.
In Acts 20:17-38 the same men are called presbyteroi (v. 17) and episcopoi (v. 28). Presbuteroi is used in a technical sense to identify their office of ordained leadership. Episcopoi is used in a non-technical sense to describe the type of ministry they exercised. This is how the Revised Standard Version renders the verses: "And from Miletus he [Paul] . . . called for the elders [presbuteroi]of the church. And when they came to him, he said to them . . . 'Take heed to yourselves and all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you guardians [episcopoi], to feed the church of the Lord.'"
In other passages it's clear that although men called presbuteroi ruled over individual congregations (parishes), the apostles ordained certain men, giving them authority over multiple congregations (dioceses), each with its own presbyters. These were endowed with the power to ordain additional presbyters as needed to shepherd the flock and carry on the work of the gospel. Titus and Timothy were two of those early episcopoi and clearly were above the office of presbuteros. They had the authority to select, ordain, and govern other presbyters, as is evidenced by Paul's instructions: "This is why I left you in Crete . . . that you might appoint elders in every town as I directed you" (Ti 1:5; cf. 1 Tm 5:17-22).
“Both cannot be true.”
Yes they can. Sorry that you are confused by that basic truth.
The Fourth Lateran Council (1215), infallibly defined that at the second coming Jesus “will judge the living and the dead, to render to every person according to his works, both to the reprobate and to the elect. All of them will rise with their own bodies, which they now wear, so as to receive according to their deserts, whether these be good or bad [Rom. 2:6–11]” (constitution 1).
The righteous, they will be transformed into a glorified state, freed from suffering and pain, and enabled to do many of the amazing things Jesus could do with his glorified body (cf. 1 Cor. 15:35–44, 1 John 3:2).
“So.....of course they’re alive!?!”
Do you c also concede that others are Alive in Heaven?
See 4691.
Either flesh and blood goes to heaven or it doesn't. Paul says no, a statement you haven't really said much about. Is Paul wrong? Is there another way to understand Paul's words?
Or is the creed and the councils wrong? Paul or the councils?
What others? Christ, God? angels? What others?
Yes, that sure is a papal paraphrase, and all the volume of material posted can only support believers praying for each other, which does not involve the ability to spiritual actually hear multitudes of prayers from the hearts of believers, and testifies to the destitution of support for PTDS. And what is needed and is conspicuously absent is,
1. just one example, among the multitude of prayers in the Bible, where anyone besides heathen (Jer. 44:19) prayed to or addressed anyone else in heaven but the Lord.
2. any place where exhortations, commands or instruction or descriptions on prayer directs believers to pray to departed saints or angels in heaven. (”i.e. “After this manner pray, Our mother, who art in heaven...”)..
3. any place where any insufficiency exists in Christ regarding immediacy, ability, or compassion that would require or advantage another intercessor in heaven between Christ and man, besides the Holy Spirit. (Ex. 25:22; Eph. 2:18; Heb. 2:18; 4:15,16; 7:25; 10:19-22; etc.)
4. any place where believers in Christ are not provided direct access to God in heaven, that having “boldness to enter into the holiest” (Heb. 10:19) means one may choose to meet a type of secretary rather than directly having access by one Spirit unto the Father. (Eph. 2:18)
5. where departed souls in heaven are taking prayer requests addressed to them.
6. where any communication between believers on earth and heavenly beings besides God took place apart from a personal visitation, in heaven or by angels coming to earth.
More: http://www.peacebyjesus.net/ptds.html
Therein lies the problem as I see it. First of all using only the Greek letters is unfair to the readers and in addition I do believe the rules around here state that if you use a foreign language you also need to include the English tranalation.
Πρεσβυτερος (Presbuteros)
elder, of age, the elder of two people advanced in life, an elder, a senior forefathers a term of rank or office among the Jews members of the great council or Sanhedrin (because in early times the rulers of the people, judges, etc., were selected from elderly men) of those who in separate cities managed public affairs and administered justice among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably the twenty four members of the heavenly Sanhedrin or court seated on thrones around the throne of God
The function of the elder in a Protestant church is not the same as the priest in the Catholic Church. There is no “Protestant translation” or “Catholic translation” or at least shouldn’t be. There is only a translation of what the word means. That’s why I pointed back to the post of daniel1212. The word “priest” in scripture has a specific meaning and it’s not used in the New Testament as an office in the church. So I would contend that you are indeed “arguing over words” and I would suggest to justify the use of the word by the RCC.
“Or is the creed and the councils wrong? Paul or the councils?”
Nope, both are correct. Sorry that you cannot understand that.
Not only, but the OT example often invoked for praying to “our mother who art in Heaven, was one in which the request was refused and resulted in the death of the supplicant that day! “ (1 Kings 2:13-25)
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.