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.
Not so. I laboriously examined each of one of those verses and not one of them referred to anyone as priest. In each one the word used was elder (presbyterou). Assigning an unscriptural function to an elder then trying to justify the use of the word priest does not change scripture because of that unscriptural assigned function. This is a classic case of the RCC inserting itself above the word of God.
Here is a quote from that site.
“That's what the word "priest" means; it is simply a shortened English form of presbuteros.”
A deception straight from the pit.
How preposterous. The RCC inserting “meaning” over top of what scripture says is simply “man’s wisdom”.
The Holy Spirit inspired the use of specific words. If the RCC can’t “mechanically” use those words but inserts something different to suit their own agenda it does so at its own peril and unfortunately the peril of those who follow her.
>>It may be difficult to confront the Holy Scripture as written at first, and naturally it seems like too much sophistication to you.<
Oh now that’s funny right there. I don’t care who ya are. First claiming that we can’t take scripture “mechanically” ie as it is written, and then stating that “it may be difficult to confront the Holy Scripture as written” in an attempt to ridicule. Oh the irony!
Like who? Who did that?
I am not a Protestant. I do not make claim to any denomination.
Being *Protestant* does not save anyone any more than being Catholic saves anyone. Being Protestant not equate to being born again and being born again does not equate to being Protestant
Being born again saves one and no one who is born again and is a new creature in Christ, who has the Holy Spirit and the mind of Christ, will curse God.
So your whole premise is wrong on several levels.
Oh, and it's not my *new found* faith. I've been a Christian for 35 years now.
Better yet, read the New Testament with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and you will become a Christian. Becoming a Catholic instead can be a hindrance to becoming born again.
Like the Catholic woman that was so bogged down in Catholicism that her response to "are you a Christian" was answered with "no, I am a Catholic."
Btw, your post was a bit
C
o
n
But that was already brought to your attention
Lots of people think they're saved but it depends on who or what they are trusting to save them.
God always loves us. But sometimes, we don't love Him. Like when we sin.
A false dichotomy. No wonder Catholics get confused about stuff. They start out with wrong premises regularly.
My love for God does not turn on or off. I love Him always. My behavior doesn't always line up with what He or I would like, but my sinning is not an indicator of my not loving Him. Don't forget, Lot was called *righteous Lot* hardly a term I'd apply to a man who did what he did, but God knows better.
Who picked Judas to be an Apostle?
Jesus knew what He was doing. Scripture HAD to be fulfilled and Judas did that.
Catholics don't claim that popes are impeccable.
What a cop out. We're not talking about impeccable. We're talking about gross, deviant immorality done by those who are supposed to be Peter's successors, Christ's representatives here on earth.
I find it ironic and hypocritical that Catholics blow off the abominable behavior of their popes and priest with a *well, nobody is perfect* flippant attitude and yet when a non-Catholic sins, they are all over him like white on rice. If any non-Catholic religious leader did half of what some of your popes have done, they would be rightly soundly condemned by non-Catholic churches and completely shredded by Catholics. Ted Haggard comes to mind and yet what he did pales by comparison to what some of your popes have been recorded as having done and from Catholics all we get is *well, nobody is perfect*? "Catholics don't claim that popes are impeccable."
Give me a break.
All those examples of gross immorality that Catholics like to give and then ask that if a *Protestant* did, are they still saved, applies to Catholics as well.
And the same answer should be given.
The LDS also has a Melchizedek priesthood (as well as an Aaron priesthood in their case.)
But I believe such non-Jewish priesthoods to be contrived for the very same passage in Hebrews explains that Melchizedek had no mother or father or children, that he is immortal. Thus his service does not end in mortal death. Indeed, some believe Jesus Christ is Melchizedek in the Old Testament - or in Judaism, that the coming Messiah is Melchizedek.
Now consider how great this man [was], unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.
And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham: But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.
And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.
And here men that die receive tithes; but there he [receiveth them], of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.
And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him. - Hebrews 7:1-10
If they were, they would be immortals appointed to service with a similar oath by God Himself:
The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. – Psalms 110:1 and 4
Jeepers, in LDS theology even God the Father had a Father who had a Father and so on.
God's Name is I AM.
It depends not on our faithfulness, but rests on God's promises.
God is able to keep us from falling.
Ephesians 1:13-14 13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.
Ephesians 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
2 Corinthians 1:20-22 20 For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why it is through him that we utter our Amen to God for his glory. 21 And it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us, 22 and who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.
Jude 1:24-25 24 Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, 25 to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.
That's exactly our point.
That also answers the question of whether someone who is a believer who denies Jesus at some point can still be saved.
What was Jesus response to Peter's denial?
Galatians 3:1-29 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. 2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? 4 Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? 5 Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— 6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?
7 Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” 9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
15 To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 20 Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.
21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.
bttt
I’ve always been fasinated by Melchizedek from the first time I laid eyes on his name and works in the Bible.
Thanks for bringing it all back with your timely dissertations on these threads.
Melchizedek is not a mortal priestMelchizedek is not a mortal priest, then it is stated that the "Catholic priesthood is likewise in the order of Melchizedek."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.
Really, that would put them above Mary in importance, being immortal.
I don't think that is allowed.
It would probably be easier if you simply told me how someone can be certain that he has eternal security.
---God always loves us. But sometimes, we don't love Him. Like when we sin.---
A false dichotomy. No wonder Catholics get confused about stuff. They start out with wrong premises regularly.
My love for God does not turn on or off. I love Him always. My behavior doesn't always line up with what He or I would like, but my sinning is not an indicator of my not loving Him.
I love my wife, even though I beat her and her children regularly... See my point?
Catholics don't claim that popes are impeccable. What a cop out. We're not talking about impeccable. We're talking about gross, deviant immorality done by those who are supposed to be Peter's successors, Christ's representatives here on earth.
What is the degree of sin that makes it impossible for sinners to be successors of the Apostles? Theft? Blasphemy? Lust? Greed? Fornication?
The Apostles were sinners, before and after Christ's death on the Cross. The successors to the Apostles have been sinners too, but also great saints. I don't understand why this point is supposed to be fatal to Apostolic succession. We see Apostolic succession in the Council of Jerusalem, where Matthias takes Judas' bishopric.
I find it ironic and hypocritical that Catholics blow off the abominable behavior of their popes and priest with a *well, nobody is perfect* flippant attitude and yet when a non-Catholic sins, they are all over him like white on rice.
Suppose that all Catholics do this. What's your point?
If any non-Catholic religious leader did half of what some of your popes have done, they would be rightly soundly condemned by non-Catholic churches and completely shredded by Catholics.
And... what? Catholics are hypocrites? Inconsistent in their actions? I suppose many are.
Ted Haggard comes to mind and yet what he did pales by comparison to what some of your popes have been recorded as having done and from Catholics all we get is *well, nobody is perfect*? "Catholics don't claim that popes are impeccable." Give me a break.
OK. Now what?
All those examples of gross immorality that Catholics like to give and then ask that if a *Protestant* did, are they still saved, applies to Catholics as well.
Of course. What we don't understand is how anyone can be certain of his salvation. Reasonably sure? Yes. Certain? No.
""Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall"
I've posted those verse plenty of times. YOU need to see them again???
I love my wife, even though I beat her and her children regularly... See my point?
Is she still your wife and are they still your children? Your bad behavior does not break the relationship, though it damages it.
What is the degree of sin that makes it impossible for sinners to be successors of the Apostles? Theft? Blasphemy? Lust? Greed? Fornication?
The Apostles were sinners, before and after Christ's death on the Cross. The successors to the Apostles have been sinners too, but also great saints. I don't understand why this point is supposed to be fatal to Apostolic succession. We see Apostolic succession in the Council of Jerusalem, where Matthias takes Judas' bishopric.
Still no excuse for the abominable behavior of your popes and still, if they are not saved, how can there be an unbroken succession of popes?
Suppose that all Catholics do this. What's your point? And... what? Catholics are hypocrites? Inconsistent in their actions? I suppose many are.
Yeah, they are and are in no position to cast stones, as they are so often wont to do.
Of course. What we don't understand is how anyone can be certain of his salvation. Reasonably sure? Yes. Certain? No. ""Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall"
And how do you read *losing salvation* into *fall*?
Of course not. For one thing, Catholics are taught from the cradle that they can't be sure, so they end up believing it.
But that then puts the person in the position of calling God a liar who does say that we can know.
We can be certain because any born again believer has the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit and when you have that, you KNOW it.
Faith is believing God. God says we can know. That's what faith is, trusting God, believing what He says is true, having confidence in His word.
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
The point has, yet again, been eluded in favor of trying to turn the issue back to non-Catholic Christians and the Gospel. I don't think anyone has suggested, nor imagined, that Roman Catholic Popes were or were expected to be "sinless". That they were expected to BE Christians is not out of the realm of expectations, though. These Popes that have gone down in history (note: not biased nor prejudicial history) as depraved and wicked demonstrated by their ongoing grossly sinful behavior that they were NOT Christians much less qualified to be leaders of the church. We have plenty of Scriptures that outline how a leader within the church is to behave and also the process to be followed when anyone - leadership or not - is to be disciplined when they refuse to repent and continue to bring shame upon the name of Christ.
The issue is why these men were not only elected to their positions by those who knew of their failings but why they were not deposed when their wickedness became public knowledge and scandal? It IS a legitimate question and the slip-sliding evasion of the point is not lost on anyone. I believe it is major proof that the Catholic Church does NOT have their self-defined divine right of carrying on the office of the Apostles with their specific gifts and enablements nor their promises of infallibility by which the "gates of hell" would not prevail. That is the point.
I agree. Winked at if it's their "guy" but dare someone like Martin Luther preach on the superabundant grace of Christ using hyperbole and their tender ears are grievously injured and the preacher is hell-bound!
I know what word was used. You wasted your effort.
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.