Catholics, Protestants, and Immaculate Mary

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.

"They," as in Luther and Kathrina, which is how you made it sound, did not escape in a barrel -dan

Luther's consort did, and he helped. It doesn't much matter what the detail was, the point is that it was furtive. -anna

Paul must have been a Protestant!

1 Cor. 7 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. -NIV

Anna, you are a good RC. I will pray for your salvation! You spout the "party line" as well as the SEIU, just by a different tune!

Martin Luther had a death warrant issued, due to his criticizing RC doctrines which are contrary to the Scriptures. The concept of sola's you spout are nothing but RC propaganda to keep the people ignorant of the truths in Scripture. If you take the Scriptures with a healthy dose of the Holy Spirit, you see Luther justified and your organization not even close.

I will close with an admonishment from Our Lord:

Mt. 23:27 -"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean.

That pretty much sums up your organization.

Post 666 sums up the RCC in a nutshell. A word means nothing except what the RCC says it means, except when it doesn’t!

In 666 I go over the usage of "πρεσβυτερος" in the original language of the New Testament and point out differences in context. Thank you for the compliment, and yes, it is a useful post to read. I also recommend 525 and 721 which complement 666. The analysis is plain linguistics. Here they are together:

in James 5:15 πρεσβυτερους της εκκλησιας are called annointing the sick; in Acts 20:17 St. Paul μετεκαλεσατο τους πρεσβυτερους της εκκλησιας; in 1 Timothy 4:14 we see that priesthood carried a special grace and that ordainment of a priest is a memorable event "μη αμελει του εν σοι χαρισματος ο εδοθη σοι δια προφητειας μετα επιθεσεως των χειρων του πρεσβυτεριου"; in Titus 1:5 Titus is instructed to "καταστησης κατα πολιν πρεσβυτερους". All these are usages, often further defined as "priests of the church", that do not apply to non-clerical roles. Other usages at least point to the select status of priests, such as "ο πρεσβυτερος γαιω τω αγαπητω" (3 John 1:1) points to priests being assigned to lay folks, themselves Christian; in 1 Timothey 5:19 priests are said to have a certain legal privilege.

***
There are usages in the New Testament where it is impossible to conclude from context that the person was specifically a priest. The best case would be the female form "πρεσβυτερας ως μητερας" (1 Timothy 5:2), but it could simply mean a priest's wife. There are others like "μετεκαλεσατο τους πρεσβυτερους της εκκλησιας" in Acts 20:17, where it demonstrably refers to a company of priests and bishops, as a part of the speech is addressed to only bishops. Lastly, in Acts 2:17, I agree, the usage is most likely "old" as opposed to young, -- but the whole passage is a quote from the Septuagint.
You need to understand that the language of the Church was just forming just as the priesthood was in the process of forming, and the word ordinarily meaning "elder" came to denote "priest". It is also true that "ιερευς", unlike "πρεσβυτερος", was a settled term, so we see no diverse usages. It was not my point that EVERY usage of "πρεσβυτερος" is provably a reference to a sacramental priest, -- certainly not those in the Gospels, -- but that whenever a function is attached to "πρεσβυτερος" is it either sacramental or separate from laity.

***
Yes, the use of "πρεσβυτερος" is less consistent than "ιερευς" as the different books of the New Testament were written at different stages of the development of Christian priesthood. This is why Douay uses both "priest" and "ancient" to translate it, depending on context.
This dual use of "πρεσβυτερος", both familiar and sacramental has seeped into our times. We familiarly call our priests "father"; "papa" is Italian for "daddy"; in Russian an endearment form of "father", "батюшка" ('batyushka) is used for priests.

Actually, the entire chapter hits home in perfectly describing the RC Organization...

********* Matthew 23
New International Version 1984

1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

5“Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteriesa wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them ‘Rabbi.’

8“But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ.b 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

13“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.c

15“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

16“Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ 17You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18You also say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.’ 19You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22And he who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the one who sits on it.

23“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

25“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

27“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. 28In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

29“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!

33“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.

37“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. 38Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’d”

*********

For references:
http://niv.scripturetext.com/matthew/23.htm

RnMomof7:Did you know that the church teaches that the validity of the eucharist depends on the intention of the priest during the "consecration"

annalex; That would be Donatism, a heresy. The opposite is the Catholic teaching.

Natural Law: That is patently false. The Church long ago refuted the heresy of Donatism. Apparently it is another heresy held by some Protestants.

You have both plainly denied that Roman Catholic teaching requires proper intention for the validity of a sacrament (versus done in pretense), relegating it as Donatist heresy. However, while it is clear RC teaching does not invalidate a sacrament due to the character of the minister, and which refutes Donatism, Roman Catholic teaching upholds that the validity of the eucharist, or sacraments in general, requires the intention of the priest to do what the church does/performs.

Emphasis mine below. I posted much of this before but neglected to ping you both.

• DE DEFECTIBUS, Papal Bull decreed by Pope Saint Pius V in ratifying the Council of Trent

I - Defects of the Missing

1. The priest who is to celebrate Mass should take every precaution to make sure that none of the things required for celebrating the Sacrament of the Eucharist is missing. A defect may occur with regard to the matter to be consecrated, with regard to the form to be observed and with regard to the consecrating minister. There is no Sacrament if any of these is missing: the proper matter, the form, including the intention, and the priestly ordination of the celebrant.

VII - Defect of intention

23. The intention of consecrating is required. Therefore there is no consecration in the following cases: when a priest does not intend to consecrate but only to make a pretense;.. (http://www.dailycatholic.org/defectib.htm)

• Council of Trent:, If anyone says that in ministers, when they effect and confer the sacraments, there is not required at least the intention of doing what the Church does,[6] let him be anathema.” (Session VII, Canon 11; http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/trent7.htm).

• Aquinas: Consequently, his intention is required, whereby he subjects himself to the principal agent; that is, it is necessary that he intend to do that which Christ and the Church do. (Summa Theologica, Question 64., Article 8., Reply to Objection 1; http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4064.htm)

• The Catholic Encyclopedia>intention: The Church teaches very unequivocally that for the valid conferring of the sacraments, the minister must have the intention of doing at least what the Church does. This is laid down with great emphasis by the Council of Trent (sess. VII). The opinion once defended by such theologians as Catharinus and Salmeron that there need only be the intention to perform deliberately the external rite proper to each sacrament, and that, as long as this was true, the interior dissent of the minister from the mind of the Church would not invalidate the sacrament, no longer finds adherents. The common doctrine now is that a real [virtual at least] internal intention to act as a minister of Christ, or to do what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect, in other words, to truly baptize, absolve, etc., is required. (www.newadvent.org/cathen/08069b.htm)

• William Most: “For Mass or Sacrament to be valid, three things are needed — right matter, right form, right intention. Anyone can baptize, but other Sacraments need in general a Bishop or a Priest. (”Father” William Most, “Validity of Mass and Sacraments;” (www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=187)

• Catholic Encyclopedia>Sacraments:

“To be a minister of the sacraments under and with Christ, a man must act as a man, i.e. as a rational being; hence it is absolutely necessary that he have the intention of doing what the Church does. This was declared by Eugene IV in 1439 (Denzinger-Bannwart, 695) and was solemnly defined in the Council of Trent (Sess.VII, can.II). ..for it is by the intention, says St. Thomas (III:64:8, ad 1) that a man subjects and unites himself to the principal agent (Christ). Moreover, by rationally pronouncing the words of the form, the minister must determine what is not sufficiently determined or expressed by the matter applied, e.g. the significance of pouring water on the head of the child (Summa Theologiæ III.64.8). - www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm

• CCC, 1256 [on baptism]: The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon.57 In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize58 , by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.59. (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm)

• The Catholic Encyclopedia>Baptism (regarding baptism by “heretics”):

“Practically, converts in the United States are almost invariably baptized either absolutely or conditionally, not because the baptism administered by heretics is held to be invalid, but because it is generally impossible to discover whether they had ever been properly baptized. Even in cases where a ceremony had certainly been performed, reasonable doubt of validity will generally remain, on account of either the intention of the administrator or the mode of administration...Still...if the proper matter and form be used and the one conferring the sacrament really “intends to perform what the Church performs” the baptism is undoubtedly valid.”

The minister’s insufficient faith concerning baptism never of itself makes baptism invalid.

Catholic Encyclopedia>Sacraments: Any one, even a pagan, can baptize, provided that he use the proper matter and pronounce the words of the essential form, with the intention of doing what the Church does. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm)

• PONTIFICIUM CONSILIUM: Sufficient intention in a minister who baptizes is to be presumed, unless there is serious ground for doubting that the minister intended to do what the Church does. (PONTIFICIUM CONSILIUM AD CHRISTIANORUM UNITATEM FOVENDAM;

DIRECTORY FOR THE APPLICATION OF

PRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON ECUMENISM; www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930325_directory_en.html)

• Canon 869 of the 1983 of canon law:

§2 Those baptized in a non-Catholic ecclesial community are not to be baptized conditionally unless there is a serious reason for doubting the validity of their baptism, on the ground of the matter or the form of words used in the baptism, or of the intention of the adult being baptized or of that of the baptizing minister. (www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P2W.HTM)

In addition, besides the intent of the minister, for valid reception RC teachings holds that some intention is necessary, if not attention,(except in children who have not yet reached the age of reason, or the insensible. Attention is also needed for licit reception of some sacraments):

• “...for the valid reception of any sacrament except the Eucharist, it is necessary that they have the intention of receiving it...”

“By the intention man submits himself to the operation of the sacraments which produce their effects ex opere operato [by the act itself], hence attention is not necessary for the valid reception of the sacraments. One who might be distracted, even voluntarily, during the conferring, e.g. of Baptism, would receive the sacrament validly.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia>Sacraments)

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.