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.
Amen! Very deep and appropriate Scriptures for this conversation. Thank you.
>>When speaking of ordained priests, St. Paul uses that contentious word again, "επιθεσεως των χειρων του πρεσβυτεριου" -- "imposition of the hands of the priesthood" (1 Timothy 4:14)<<
Let’s first look at the verse.
1 Timothy 4:14 Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders (presbyteriou) laid their hands on you.
Transliteration: presbuterion
Phonetic Spelling: (pres-boo-ter'-ee-on)
Short Definition: an assembly of elders
Then let’s look at the individual words you used trying to claim priest.
επιθεσεως (epithesis)
Short Definition: laying on
Definition: a laying on; an attack, assault.
των (ho)
Short Definition: the
χειρων (cheir)
Short Definition: a hand
τοῦ (tou)
Short Definition: the
Definition: the, the definite article.
πρεσβυτεριου (presbuterion)
Short Definition: an assembly of elders
Still no priest there.
>>Like I said, "πρεσβυτερος" is used intermixed with "ιερευς", but I pointed out several uses where it can only refer to sacramental priesthood<<
“can only refer”? I haven’t seen any of the verses that refer to the elders as priests. It’s the inference of the RCC because of the way they want to structure their church. The ONLY priesthood in the New Testament is that of the believers and Christ.
Amen, amen and amen.
The Scriptures give us ample ways to know whether or not the faith we profess is genuine or not. The doctrine of Eternal Security is based upon the promises of God and His grace which saves us to the uttermost who put our faith in Him. When we sin - and we all will - God forgives and cleanses us from all unrighteousness. But those who are saved by grace through faith will not be judged according to their sins - as the punishment for sin has been borne by the Savior. Nothing can separate us from the love of God. Jesus said those who believed in Him were not condemned (John 3:18).
Who picked Judas to be an Apostle? Catholics don't claim that popes are impeccable.
Jesus picked Judas already knowing what he would do and it fit within God's plan. The College of Cardinals, who decide who will lead ALL Christians (according to the Catholic Church) are NOT God. Jesus didn't pick Judas for his role in the ministry of reconciliation after the resurrection. The CofC is said to have a divine responsibility to choose the successor to Peter to lead the entire church. Neither Peter nor God would have had anything to do with those Popes who were abominations to the faith. There is a great deal of difference between failings of men that are Christians and gross sin among men that call themselves Christians and the leaders of all Christians. There is no logical reason why God would have specifically chosen all those men who got picked to be Pope who got there through simony and bribery of other Cardinals and Bishops and who had and continued to have gross sin in their lives. That the cardinals and bishops thought so little of their responsibilities to the faithful that they knowingly anointed men to the very top rung of church leadership further demonstrates that the Apostolic Succession that the Catholic Church likes to propose it alone possesses is pure myth.
From what I know about Peter's faith, I don't doubt for a moment, that had Judas lived, he wouldn't have found ANY position available to him in the community of believers. And that really is what we are talking about.
You're reading more into this than is there. God always loves us. True.
But this doesn't mean that we always love Him. We can separate ourselves from the love of God when we choose not to love Him --when we sin.
Jesus said those who believed in Him were not condemned (John 3:18).
"In the same way, faith by itself, if it does not prove itself with actions, is dead." (James 2:17) Faith is more than intellectual.
The College of Cardinals, who decide who will lead ALL Christians (according to the Catholic Church) are NOT God.
The Church doesn't teach that they are.
The CofC is said to have a divine responsibility to choose the successor to Peter to lead the entire church. Neither Peter nor God would have had anything to do with those Popes who were abominations to the faith.
Jesus and Peter would have nothing to do with sinners? Aren't we all sinners? Didn't Peter deny Jesus three times? Didn't all of the Apostles abandon Jesus? Weren't they "abominations to the faith?" Yet Jesus forgave them.
And don't forget the many saintly popes, and the fact that the first 31 popes were martyred.
Once we are born again and become children of the Most High, we cannot be cast out or lost. God does not cease to love us if/when we sin because he knows our frame, he knows our weaknesses. God doesn't require us to be sinless in order to be saved - if that were the case, NONE would be saved. God saves us through his grace and he GIVES us eternal life THROUGH faith, NOT by our works - or our non-works, either. We don't become lost when we sin if we are God's because our salvation was never based on our OWN righteousness, but on Christ's righteousness. Our actions cannot make us cease to BE God's children - that is what grace is all about.
"In the same way, faith by itself, if it does not prove itself with actions, is dead." (James 2:17) Faith is more than intellectual.
A genuine faith WILL exhibit a changed life because we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and he is working within us to conform us to the image of Christ. A TRUE faith will not BE a dead faith, but works do not merit salvation - only faith in Christ does. What do you think a "dead" faith is? Real faith WILL not be dead, useless, unfruitful, but it is a living faith that cannot help but be active because it is a new nature in Christ.
Jesus and Peter would have nothing to do with sinners? Aren't we all sinners? Didn't Peter deny Jesus three times? Didn't all of the Apostles abandon Jesus? Weren't they "abominations to the faith?" Yet Jesus forgave them. And don't forget the many saintly popes, and the fact that the first 31 popes were martyred.
The Holy Spirit would be working in their lives as He would any other lost person - drawing them to recognize their sin, understanding their need for righteousness and the judgment that will come. You seem to be missing the point here. When you speak about a man who is the Pope, you aren't supposed to be talking about some bum off the street, at enmity with God and an enemy to Christians, are you? Isn't the whole idea that this guy is divinely appointed to succeed St. Peter as the head over all Christians? So, how can he be someone who is guilty of gross immorality or murder or simony or any one of the "mortal" sins Catholics say excludes someone from heaven? Of course, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, but some of these guys were guilty of things most normal people would be appalled at and would NEVER think of committing. Can someone guilty of gross sin be saved? Yes, of course, where sin abounded the grace of God superabounded, but there WOULD be a changed life, there would be repentance. A genuine Christian would not continue doing the kinds of things these men relished in doing - blatantly. A Christian is a new creation in Christ and, as he grows in grace, is repelled by his former ways of sin.
The whole point is simply that the Catholic Church cannot lay claim to an "unbroken line" of successors to St. Peter, as if each of these men were specially selected by God to carry on the faith, the gifts and the life of the Apostles. It is far too evident that they haven't, they don't, they can't and they aren't. It is another false teaching that crept into the Roman Catholic Church over the centuries and which causes shame upon ALL of Christianity, whether or not one is Catholic.
Besides ignoring what i said about these attempts (Ja. 5:1, etc.), while you are reduced to arguing for formally entitling πρεσβύτερος/presbuteros as ἱερεύς/hiereus due to some priestly functions, they are distinct because the NT pastors are not engaging in making expiatory sacrifices as a separate priesthood, despite Rome's assertions otherwise, and thus the Holy Spirit makes the distinction which Rome ignores by never referring to NT pastors by the unique title for priest.
Here you need to widen your horizon beyond English...has taken on the new meaning of Catholic..
Meaning to fit a later developed job description. It is who am going by the linguistics of the Scriptures, while Rome supposes she can subject Scripture to fit her doctrine. It is due to Rome's Eucharistic theology that the distinguishing title was given. A "new type of service" indeed. You are basically lecturing the Holy Spirit, reproving Him for not once giving the titled hiereus to the NT pastors in distinction from all believers, for how could He fail to see that they were distinctly like expiatory Jewish priests of Rome? And that they also really are supposed to be celibate. Rome is so arrogantly helpful.
I am weary of your sophistry. Your laborious vain attempts to justify doing what the Holy Spirit never once did simply testifies to the incredulity that defenders of Rome must often go to due to defend her traditions from Scripture. But which at least proves that she did not rewrite the Scriptures, as the Muslims are reduced to arguing.
I've heard that Benedict has written 3 books about Jesus.
1 John 5:13
I write these things to you who believe in the name of God's Son so that you can know that you have eternal life.
Why do so many people NOT believe this Scripture?
Yup; that stupid David fellow really stepped in it!
Psalm 51
Why, we indeed had sinful popes; in fact only some of the popes were recognized as saints. To think that if one is Catholic by religious affiliation means the one is “saved” is bringing the false salvation by faith alone concept to Catholicism. While Catholics receive special assurances of salvation through the sacraments of the Church available to them, they are judged just like Protestants by their works and therefore saved only when a lifetime of mature well-formed faith has lead them to union with Christ.
Indeed, as we read in Hebrews especially, the Priesthood of Christ is not levitical and therefore Catholic priesthood is likewise in the order of Melchizedek. Theologically, there is but one Catholic priest, Jesus Christ, because there is but one Mass, the Golgotha hill.
This one was not founded on the Law of Moses, but predated the Law
James Akin. THE PRIESTHOOD DEBATE
This is another reason why purely linguistic dictionary-based analysis ("ιερευς" means "priest" so therefore!? "πρεσβυτερος" must mean something other than "priest") is flawed. There are many kinds of priests in the Bible.
Well; that IS special!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VbX22w9qws
Thank you. Indeed, that is the answer a literate Protestant should be able to give at once -- it is the Protestant multiplication table. It was amusing to see all these professors of Protestantism beating around the bush for so long.
I would agree, to the extent that cursing and rejecting God (due to pain, or pride, or some other sin) shows immaturuty of faith. That man had faith but he had not enough of it. He was not saved. So therefore, faith, unless strengthened by works, is not yet mature faith. We are not saved by faith alone.
Of course cursing God at death was merely a simple example. The sinning popes, -- assuming their sins were not confessed and forgiven afterward, -- would be another example of faith dead for lack of good works.
525.
Thank you for putting it so well into words. Not even Rome can claim the title of priest is included in the New Testament as was seen in the site that was given to try to explain the use of it. It was an eye opener for me to see that they were trying to fit their own doctrine without justification from scripture.
But neither offering the Eucharist is the only function of a Catholic priest. We surely see the early Church offering Eucharist understood as sacrifice; we just don't have a solid prooftext that shows who precisely is doing it.
It is who am [sic!] going by the linguistics of the Scriptures
You are going mechanically by the dictionary, while not interested in meaning. Read the Holy Scripture in love and with attention, and it will reveal its meaning to you, and you, too, will become Catholic and learn to understand it.
I am weary of your sophistry
It may be difficult to confront the Holy Scripture as written at first, and naturally it seems like too much sophistication to you. But you are a literate man and author. Take courage.
Unbelievably special: Jesus lost half of His discipleship over precisely this.
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day (John 6:55; your numbers are probably off by one)
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.