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.
Was Luther’s consort a nun or was she not? Or is it your contention that she was, on top of that, a married nun? My point is very simple: they were not free to marry. All this piling of historical context is fascinating but it does not alter anything in this simple proposition: they were not free to marry, so they were not married. They were fornicating.
They could indeed petition the appropriate authority for dispensation and granted that, they could have been married. They did not -- they were sneaking around in fish barrels.
Did the ten worst popes in history start a new religion? Luther did.
and what?
The Early Church Fathers and the churches they established all held to a visible Church, under the Bishop of Rome Whoa! Full STOP
Under the Bishop of Rome? Peter was then in Jerusalem, and though looked upon with great respect, did not elevate himself above his fellows, nor did those others elevate him as sole chief among them. To do so would have been contrary to the overall spirit of the church. The Spirit fell upon all of those gathered there, in Acts 2.
If this not be true, then the claim you attempt to here again confect would have not been been so controversial when it was pressed, centuries later.
The claim is a falsehood, always was. Much other illumination which can be seen in the NT which refutes the supposition, on more than one level.
And how does touching story of romance, debauchery and cowardice acquit Luther from the charge of fornication?
What about your popes?
So what? He "married" her. She was not free to marry. Nor was he, as a former priest. Crooks and sleazebags both.
Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. Conscience confronts [the individual] with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official church" (Pope Benedict XVI [then Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger], Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, ed. Vorgrimler, 1968, on Gaudium et spes, part 1,chapter 1.)
I'm not so sure acknowledgement of conscience regardless of which then archbishop (and now RCC Pope) said it, as it can apply to context of discussion to which you employed it, will be forthcoming.
That is unless it can be sent through the spin cycle, turned into meaning something else, explained away with specious rhetoric, etc.
Just a bit of acknowledgement, every once in a while, would be nice. Some here (among them) can swing it. Some can't. Some try to split the difference, so as to never have to admit to being wrong in the slightest, and when not able to get away with that entirely, hide the confession so as casual passerby won't catch on to what's happening.
Those that cannot concede a point, or see where another may be coming from, are the same whom term all opposition "hatred" as they hurl their own [spitwads].
The trouble with those rapid fire spitwads, is they keep getting ricocheted right back in their own faces. Their own arguments. Their own spit, their own bile...with nothing else need be added to condemn them, and their "reasoning".
Now this sort of thing can be a two-way street of course, as truth in it's essence is (applying to all equally). Cardinal Ratzinger either spoke truth then, or it will now be swept away by prohibiting the same to apply to the very thing he clearly said it did.
I thank & commend you for not sinking to that level [of slime-based SPIT], while continuing to bring cogent argument [discussion] difficult at times as it may be to follow, due in part to the nature of the forum, with many conversations taking place and overlapping, scattering the competing points of proofs & logic widely.
Is this all worth it? I don't know. Much effort for perhaps very little progress.
Good IDEA!
Acts 17
1 When Paul and his companions had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. 2 As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead. “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Messiah,” he said. 4 Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and quite a few prominent women.
5 But other Jews were jealous; so they rounded up some bad characters from the marketplace, formed a mob and started a riot in the city. They rushed to Jason’s house in search of Paul and Silas in order to bring them out to the crowd.[a] 6 But when they did not find them, they dragged Jason and some other believers before the city officials, shouting: “These men who have caused trouble all over the world have now come here, 7 and Jason has welcomed them into his house. They are all defying Caesar’s decrees, saying that there is another king, one called Jesus.” 8 When they heard this, the crowd and the city officials were thrown into turmoil. 9 Then they made Jason and the others post bond and let them go.
10 As soon as it was night, the believers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. 11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 12 As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.
13 But when the Jews in Thessalonica learned that Paul was preaching the word of God at Berea, some of them went there too, agitating the crowds and stirring them up. 14 The believers immediately sent Paul to the coast, but Silas and Timothy stayed at Berea. 15 Those who escorted Paul brought him to Athens and then left with instructions for Silas and Timothy to join him as soon as possible.
16 While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. 17 So he reasoned in the synagogue with both Jews and God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. 18 A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to debate with him. Some of them asked, “What is this babbler trying to say?” Others remarked, “He seems to be advocating foreign gods.” They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. 19 Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20 You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we would like to know what they mean.” 21 (All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)
22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.
24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’[b] As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’[c]
29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”
32 When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, “We want to hear you again on this subject.” 33 At that, Paul left the Council. 34 Some of the people became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others.
Why do YOU call this ineffective ?
So you own them.
OK.
And that qualifies you to throw stones just how?
You know what, if 10% of what your popes are alleged to have done is true, it was well past time to start a new religion.
Luther was right in ways that are beyond the comprehension of Catholics today simply because they refuse to acknowledge the truth.
The Holy Scripture has instances of venerating Mary (Luke 1:28, 11:27-8) and the Holy Apostles (Acts 19:12). It does not instances of venerating just any Christian. But as a private initiative, you can, of course: this is how saints are recognized.
You have claimed this AGAIN!
Prove it!
Oh; probably similar to...
' ...the touching HIstory of romance, debauchery and cowardice about Roman popes gets ignored.
What do you want me to substantiate?
Luther clearly rejected faith as being saving without works.
Good, if true. If only he repented of his schism, put his "wife" and himself back into monasteries where they belonged and spent the rest of his days covering his fat head with ashes, things would have been much better for him and for everyone else.
Luther himself is largely irrelevant
After trying to explain away his "marriage" and his "Sole Fide" idiocy, you are telling me? Yes, he as a person is not relevant; that there are people apparently quite fond of him is.
Of course. And a bishop.
If they did not mean them why did they take them? If they did not understand them, why did they not seek a dispensation?
They become priests voluntarily and know what it entails.
YES, a vast knowledge of the law when the knowledge that counts is the JESUS/THE LORD - and when he learned who Jesus is, he embraced Him when only knowing HIM in the spirit and not in the physical/flesh. We know HIM the same way.
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.