Posted on 06/02/2007 12:50:30 PM PDT by Titanites
I was baptized on April 29, 1973, in East Paris Christian Reformed Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan. My religious upbringing until college was completely CRC; my schooling through college was in Christian schools sponsored by the CRC. I can’t say that I was aware of any Protestant denominations other than the CRC. The first time I heard the words of the "Hail Mary" was from the lips of my CRC minister during a high-school catechism class. My only other contact would have been the pictures of the seven Catholic sacraments in the family encyclopedia. In many ways this "cloistered" upbringing was a great blessing to me later on: I grew up free from any anti-Catholic prejudices, and so there was no anti-Catholic bigotry on my part that had to be overcome before my conversion.
When I was about twelve, my mother made me a brown, terrycloth bathrobe. My family had a tradition of going camping every year, and there were sand dunes behind the campground. I can remember vividly pacing up and down these sand dunes in my brown bathrobe, pretending to be a monk. I could have had no idea at that age what a monk was (perhaps I got the idea from television), but there I was, in my robe, walking in my "desert."
I went to a "Bible camp" for a number of years as a child. I remember one summer sitting around the campfire singing the simple song, "God is so good." And for some reason, I started crying. The simple words of that little song caused a disproportionate reaction in me. I was crying because God was good and I was not. But I was also crying because God is good, and the simple beauty of that thought overwhelmed me. I felt that God was really present to me at that moment.
There is only one other time I have felt that presence in any similar way. It must have been my junior year in high school. My brother and I went before the elders of our CRC church to make profession of faith (something like the sacrament of confession, although the CRC doesn’t believe that the profession of faith is sacramental).
Profession of faith is a two-stage process: First, the elders of the church quiz you about what you believe and tell you if you "made it" or not; and then, on the next Sunday, you stand before the entire congregation and "profess your faith." After the quizzing, my brother and I had been sent out for the elders to deliberate, and then we were called back into the meeting room and told that our professions before the elders had been accepted.
One of the elders reminded the pastor that it was customary to sing in thanksgiving at this point the song "Praise God from Whom All Blessings Flow." As we started singing, I got to thinking how the faith I had just professed was the same as the faith of these fifty- and sixty-year-old men around me. Even more than that, I could see with the eye of my imagination all the saints of the ages past together with us, looking on that little room and praising God with us. And if I had felt the presence of God that time at camp, what I was feeling now was the presence of God through the communion of the saints.
Like all good CRC kids, after high school I went to Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan. (I think I may have applied to one or two other places, but only pro forma; Calvin was where I wanted to go.) Due to a couple things that had happened the summer before, I chose pre-seminary as my major and then changed it to classical languages and theology. My idea was to become not a pastor but a "pastor to pastors"—a professor of Church history in a seminary.
During my first year at Calvin, my interest in monasticism resurfaced, mostly through the coming to Calvin of a couple of brothers from the Taizé community. This community is an ecumenical monastery in France (founded by a small group of men from the French Reformed tradition) whose primary work is prayer for reconciliation. When the two brothers came to Calvin, we had a chance to talk to them, and they also let a Taizé-style prayer service: very simple and beautiful, with scriptural refrains sung repeatedly.
The summer after my first year at Calvin, some friends of mine and I went to a larger meeting in Dayton, Ohio, and got to see the founder of Taizé, Brother Roger. I don’t know if you can see holiness in someone, but if so, I saw it in the eyes of Brother Roger.
During that weekend, my friends and I were walking around Dayton, and I just happened to duck into a church for a while. It had to have been a Catholic church, but I don’t think I realized it at the time. As anyone who knows me can verify, I have a weakness for church literature racks. In this church I saw a pile of little baggies on a table and took one; I don’t remember if I opened it before or after I got out of the church. But inside were a small plastic rosary, a few pamphlets, and some other items. I put the whole thing in my pocket and thought nothing of it.
When I returned to Calvin in the fall, I began using the crucifix on that rosary during my devotions (which consisted of reading through the Psalms on a thirty-day cycle) as a way of centering my eyes and my thoughts on the God. Before I left Calvin, I was praying the rosary—I may be the only person who has prayed a rosary in the prayer rooms in Calvin’s chapel—but I’m getting a bit ahead of myself.
During my first year or so at Calvin, I grew to be a good friend of the college chaplain. My sophomore year I think it was, Chaplain Cooper asked me to join a group he had formed that got together each week to read and discuss a section from the Institutes of John Calvin. With my own interest in theology, I ate up everything we were reading. This was at last something to really sink my intellectual teeth into.
The first semester of my junior year at Calvin, a couple of interesting things happened. One day coming home from my CRC church, I happened to catch the last part of the local televised Catholic Mass. More interesting to me than the Mass was the little ten-minute discussion show afterwards, where a priest and another fellow were discussing the Catholic teaching on Mary. I was kind of interested, so I wrote to the address given at the end of the program, and the priest-host of the show sent me a copy of the text they had been discussing—chapter eight of Lumen Gentium, one of the documents of the Second Vatican Council. It was interesting, but at the time it didn’t make a big impression on me.
Another interesting thing that year was a class I was taking in the fall semester on early and medieval theology. In the course of one semester we were supposed to read two thousand pages—although I don’t think even the professor did— and cover fifteen hundred years of Christian history, from the apostolic Fathers to Erasmus. Two authors I read in that class really captured my imagination. I say now that Irenaeus of Lyons introduced me to the beauty of the Catholic faith, and Thomas Aquinas introduced me to its lucidity.
Also around that time I became a friend with a fellow in that class who had converted from the CRC to the Episcopal Church. I started going with him to the Wednesday night services at the local Episcopal parish, which introduced me to a liturgical form of worship. (Later, perhaps in the spring of my junior year, I even had the Episcopal priest bless the brown scapular that was also in the baggie from Dayton. He didn’t know what a brown scapular was, but he blessed it anyway. I still wear the scapular, now properly blessed and imposed by a Catholic priest.)
The defining moment in my conversion came in January of my junior year, if I remember correctly. Around that time I was reading Peter Kreeft’s Fundamentals of the Faith, but that wasn’t really what did it. The first major impetus in my decision for Catholicism came from a passage in John Calvin. The discussion group I mentioned had come to the section in the Institutes where Calvin gives a number of reasons why a group may break from the Church and go into schism. And as the discussion progressed that evening, a question occurred to me. I asked it: "Granted that these are the reasons Calvin gives for going into schism, what happens if, by the grace of God, the church you broke away from should repair the error that was the occasion for the schism? Do you have then an obligation to rejoin the church you broke away from?"
Silence. We talked about it for a bit, but we didn’t come up with an answer. Chaplain Cooper didn’t have an answer. And that did not satisfy me, not one bit.
It was at that moment that, looking back on it, I can say that I started taking John 17 seriously. Here we see our Lord’s dying wish to his Father, as it were, that his followers be one (17:21). This is not some hypothetical, invisible unity, but a unity so real that the only model for it our Lord uses is his own unity with the Father. And I began thinking to myself: If unity among his followers was the last wish of the one I call Savior and Lord, I had better do everything in my power to fulfill it.
So I began reading about Catholicism. I wrote to the priest-host of the show I mentioned and also to Peter Kreeft—the only graduate from Calvin that I knew of who had converted to Catholicism. Both gave me good lists of books that I began reading, and I found others on my own. Two of the most influential books I read were John Henry Cardinal Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine and Francis de Sales’s Catholic Controversies. The first has a marvelous passage connecting all of Christian doctrine to the fundamental belief in the Incarnation; the second raised the all-important question, granting that the Church needed reform at the time of the Reformation, who gave the Reformers the authority to do what they did?
In all this study, I was finding that one of three things was true. (1) The Catholic Church teaches what I already believe, for example, the articles of the Apostles’ Creed. (2) The Catholic teaching was a logical extension of what I already believed. For example: Because of the communion of the saints, I can ask you or any other Christian here on earth to pray for me. Well then, why can’t I ask for Mary or one of the other saints in heaven to pray for me? (3) There were a very limited number of instances where the Catholic Church taught differently than what I believed as a Reformed Protestant, and in each case the Catholic Church was right. For example, I came to reject Calvin’s teaching on double predestination.
By my senior year at Calvin I was more or less a Catholic in my convictions. I was simply waiting for the right time to convert. I chose to go to Notre Dame to do my graduate work because it is a Catholic school (and again, it was really my only choice). But for my first year there, I was still waiting. What really made me decide to take the plunge, so to speak, was a conversation I had with a Protestant friend in the spring of my first year in South Bend.
Because I usually wear my heart on my sleeve, this friend and I had gotten to talking about my journey toward Catholicism. I began explaining the Catholic position on the subject of the Eucharist to my friend, based on John 6. I talked about how the first part of the chapter demonstrates that Jesus can do miraculous things with bread (John 6:1–14). The second part (John 6:15–21) shows us that Jesus can do miraculous things with his body. And then we get to the Bread of Life discourse, which concludes with the promise of the Eucharist.
At some point in the conversation, it was like my mouth went on autopilot. Outside, I was still talking; but inside, I was thinking to myself, "You know, I really believe this stuff." I realized that Catholicism was no longer for me a clever intellectual system; I had received the gift of supernatural faith. And so I decided then and there that I would enter the Catholic Church the next school year (for reasons I won’t go into, I had already decided to go through an RCIA program when the time came, so I had to wait for the next "rotation"). On Holy Thursday, March 27, 1997, I became a member of the Catholic Church and received my first Holy Communion, and two days later during the Easter Vigil was confirmed Catholic, taking Irenaeus as my confirmation patron.
It was only looking back on everything a few years later that I noticed how Mary had been with me throughout the whole process, leading me in her own subtle, humble way to deeper intimacy with her Son. She had been named in the Hail Mary that my Protestant pastor had spoken those many years ago. It was her rosary that I discovered in Dayton. It was Lumen Gentium, chapter eight—some of the most beautiful words the Church has ever spoken about our Lady—that put me in contact with a Catholic priest for the first time. And it was at the University of Notre Dame, our Lady’s university, that I was received into the Catholic Church.
Of course, my journey with God continues to be written, and I still struggle to know and do God’s will. But I cannot imagine my life without being a Catholic. John 17:21 still haunts me, and I still wish for everyone to experience the fullness of the Christian faith, the fullness I now possess. With the words of Paul, I conclude, "Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own" (Phil. 3:12).
You’re too funny.
What do you mean? Does such man choose to do what he does, or is he insane? I don't know.
Logically speaking, he did not use "sola scriptura" to undermine sola scriptura. He used "scriptura" to undermine sola scriptura.
Allegory
used only in Gal. 4:24, where the apostle refers to the history of Isaac the free-born, and Ishmael the slave-born, and makes use of it allegorically. Every parable is an allegory. Nathan (2 Sam. 12:1-4) addresses David in an allegorical narrative. In the eightieth Psalm there is a beautiful allegory: “Thou broughtest a vine out of Egypt,” etc. In Eccl. 12:2-6, there is a striking allegorical description of old age.
Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary
Where do you get the authority to say what is "clearly allegory" and what is not? Beyond that, how can you be sure you are right?
Christians from the earliest days of the Church confess that those are NOT simply allegory.
Where do you get the authority to say what is "clearly allegory" and what is not? Beyond that, how can you be sure you are right?
Christians from the earliest days of the Church confess that those are NOT simply allegory.
The following is a repost of mine from a couple of months ago.....
Why do you suppose Scripture puts focus on Bread and Wine then?
Genesis 14.17-20, says....
After his return from the defeat of Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with them, the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the Valley of Shaveh, (that is the King’s Valley). And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out BREAD and wine; he was priest of God Most High. And he blessed him and said,
“Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
maker of heaven and earth;
and blessed be God Most High,
who has delivered your enemies into your hand!”
This is the first time in the Bible that anyone is addressed by the word coen, the Hebrew word for priest. As a “priest of God Most High,” Melchizedek “brought out bread and wine.”
What is the connection between his priesthood and those two offerings?
What about this....
Jesus said “Your ancestors ate manna in the wilderness and died...I am the living BREAD that came down from heaven...unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man you will not have life within you.”
Jesus was born in “Bethlehem” which, in Hebrew, literally means “house of Bread”
A manger was not a place where animals stayed. It was a trough where food was put to feed the animals. Mary laid Jesus in a place where food was placed
At the last supper, which was a passover meal, Jesus said “take this and eat it, this is my body.”
“I Am The BREAD of Life”
John 6:48
Scripture says “For indeed Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us. Therefore, let us keep this feast.” (1 Cor 5:7-8) This relates to Exodus 12:1-42. The Passover meal saved from the angel of death who was striking the first born children in Egypt. At a traditional Passover supper, the Jews ate the sacrificial lamb.
Paul is saying that this feast should continue. They don’t think that he was “re-sacrificing” Christ when he kept this feast.
We see the Eucharistic formula throughout Scripture. At table, Jesus takes . . . blesses . . . breaks . . . and gives the bread. He also took a cup of wine; after giving thanks to God, He gave it to His disciples saying, “This is My blood . . . of the [new] covenant.” Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:15-20. This is the same formula Jesus uses during the first Eucharistic celebration after the resurrection when He encountered two disciples on the road to Emmaus (see Luke 24:13-35). When the Corinthians drift from the proper Eucharistic formula, Paul corrects them.(1 Corinthians 11:23-29)
“Give us this day our daily bread.”
Matthew 6:11
This is from the prayer that Jesus taught us, the “Our Father”.
It means in totality, bread as food for our bodies and spiritual bread as food for our souls.
We are to continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God.
Every day in every place a clean oblation is offered.
What, or who, is the sacrifice and what is a clean oblation?
It is an offering of praise to GOD, in the Holy Eucharist, the Body, and the Precious Blood of Christ. The Catholic Church offers the sacrifice of praise to GOD all over the world, every day in the Mass.
It has replaced the bloody animal sacrifices of the Old Testament.
That is why it is called a clean oblation.
In Matthew 26:26, didn’t Jesus take bread and say, “Take and eat; this is my body”?
And did he not beseech us to say in the Lords Prayer:
“Give us this day out daily bread”, (both physical for the body, and spiritual for the soul).
Matthew 6:11
How many non-Catholic ecclesial communities offer daily sacrifice, a clean oblation, as is clearly commanded for us to do by Holy Scripture? How many do not even offer sacrifice?
“Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened.
For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed.”
1Corinthians 5:7
“Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.”
Ephesians 5:1-2
“I have received full payment, and more; I am filled, having received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent, a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God.”
Philippians 4:18
Jesus Christ is the “food” which sustains the spiritual soul which lives forever. He is the “bread come down from heaven” as we saw in John chapter six.
Can a mere “symbol” sustain the spiritual soul to eternal life?
Since the manna was the type or symbol of the New Testament reality, that question can be answered by another basic rule of typology:
“An Old Testament type (symbol) never points to a New Testament symbol, but to a reality.”
So obviously the “food which endures to eternal life” cannot be a symbol, but a New Testament reality. It also cannot be a symbol, for another reason. It would violate yet a second basic rule of typology which we have previously discussed:
“The New Testament reality is far superior to the Old Testament type.”
So does this mean that Christ is sacrificed over and over again in the Eucharistic Celebration?
Again, what does Holy Scripture say?
“For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit;”
1Peter 3:18
“The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office; but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues for ever. Consequently he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did this once for all when he offered up himself.”
Hebrews 7:23-27
Christ was sacrificed only once and for all time. He is both the High Priest and the victim.
Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1366
“The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit: (Christ), our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper ‘on the night when he was betrayed,’ (he wanted) to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.
(Council of Trent (1562): DS 1740; cf. 1 Cor 11:23; Heb 7:24,27.)”
We must remember that GOD is outside of time. Time is a measure of change for the things He has created. Since He never changes, He Himself is outside of time.
Consequently, everything from creation, and before, and for all eternity is now with GOD, including the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. It is a continuous, never ending sacrifice.
How can something that never ends be repeated?
God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.”
And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”
Exodus 3:14
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
John 8:58
“And getting into a boat he crossed over and came to his own city. And behold, they brought to him a paralytic, lying on his bed; and when Jesus saw their faith he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.” And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.” But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he then said to the paralytic—”Rise, take up your bed and go home.” And he rose and went home. When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.”
Matthew 9:1-8
These classic verses graphically show the connection between healing of the body and healing of the soul. Jesus first cleansed the paralytic’s soul, and then He cleansed his body. Pay especial attention to the last line. To whom was authority given? Notice that the very last word in the verses is plural.
In summery
1. The body needs physical food in order to survive or else it will die.
2. The spiritual soul needs spiritual food in order to avoid spiritual death, the separation from GOD.
3. Spiritual food cannot be a symbolic gesture, simply because a mere symbol could not possibly feed the spiritual soul. Spiritual food is as much a reality as is physical food. It is the anti type of its Old Testament type of the manna in the desert. Recall that an O.T. type never points to a N.T. symbol.
4. Scripture tells us that there will be offered sacrifice every day in every place, a clean oblation.
How can symbolism of a sacrifice be a sacrifice in itself?
5. The bread come down from heaven, Jesus Christ, is that clean oblation, His sacrifice on the cross.
6. Jesus Christ was sacrificed once on the cross for all eternity.
7. Jesus Christ is both the High Priest and the victim, the Paschal Lamb of sacrifice.
8. Since He is High Priest forever (Heb 7:17), He is also the sacrificial Lamb forever (Rev 5:13-14).
9. Since GOD is outside of time, everything is now with Him. That one sacrifice at Calvary, which is always now for GOD, is made present for us during the Eucharistic celebration of the Mass.
10. The Mass is a re-presentation of that one sacrifice. We are re-presented at Calvary.
Here is another fact..
Every single Early Church Father(Not a single exception!) believed that Jesus is truly present in Eucharist
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html
I like to use Saint Anthanasius because
Surely , anyone who swears by Solo Scripture has to give credibility to Saint Anthanasis since he was the
first person to identify the same 27 books of the New Testament that are in use today
ST. ATHANASIUS
St. Athanasius was born in Alexandria ca. 295 A.D. He was ordained a deacon in 319 A.D. He accompanied his bishop, Alexander, to the Council of Nicaea, where he served as his secretary. Eventually he succeeded Alexander as Bishop of Alexandria. He is most known for defending Nicene doctrine against Arian disputes.,
“’The great Athanasius in his sermon to the newly baptized says this:’ You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ. ‘And again:’ Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine - and thus His Body is confected.”,
-”Sermon to the Newly Baptized” ante 373 A.D
If you condemn Saint Anthanasius as a heretic then how can you trust your Bible?
I wish you a Blessed Day!
Was that done as a final result of the compelling influence of the Holy Spirit drawing you to Christ? Or was that something you did entirely on your own?
Is your salvation secure because of something you did, or because of something Christ did?
Was God surprised by your decision?
Or was it something that he had known since the beginning of time?
I find arguments about the mechanism of how one comes to the point of accepting Christ as pretty worthless.
But I see you are drawn into the argument. I think it is pretty important. The most important thing we need to understand is that Salvation is the work of God. We cannot be saved without God's direct intervention and his overcoming our our own sinful nature and his overcoming our own God-rejecting free will.
Since you came willingly to Christ, how did that happen? Was your heart made willing because of some rational decision on your part, or was it made willing because the Holy Spirit broke down your free will and made you willing to come to Christ?
christians should simply spead the Gospel and not waste time constructing elaborate - and speculative - explanations as to how it comes about.
If you actually felt that way, then you would not have challenged ears-to-hear's belief that the plan of salvation (including the foreordained sins of Adam and Eve) was entirely the work of God.
Maybe you misunderstand me. I do not say that Christ is not present at communion/Eucharist. I simply believe that the wine and bread are not transformed into the actual physical blood and body of Christ.
I don’t condemn Anthanasius as a heretic. Besides, you quote someone making a claim about what Anthanasius preached. If Anthanasius did argue that the elements become the actual blood and body of Christ, he was mistaken. That would not make him a heretic; just wrong on one issue.
You might disagree with us less if you understood the following:
1. We do not worship Mary. We only ask her to intercede on our behalf.
Actually, you DO “worship” her, you’re just ever so careful to make the distinction between dulia and hyper-dulia.
2. Our basis for papal infallability is Biblical. It’s an interpretation, but it is based on Scripture.
I always love this one. Using sola scriptura to undermine sola scriptura. Priceless :)
3. Our basis for the Eucharist is also Biblical, but IMO, it’s not at all an interpretation. It’s a hard, cold fact straight from Christ Himself.
See how quickly interpretation suddenly becomes cold, hard, undeniable fact when you make the error in #2?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The ignorance of your statements is staggering. Let’s go into this a bit deeper...shall we?
1. Intercessory prayer is Biblical. Honoring the Mother of Christ is simply following his instructions. Funny how little of the Bible some protestants actually know...had you read the Bible, you’d realize this.
2. Papal infallibility is scriptural. Our use of scripture to support what we do has nothing to do with the silly protestant notion of sola scriptura...the ENTIRE Mass is scripture based.
3. Prove to me that the Eucharist is non-scriptural.
Have you even been to Mass? Why bash something if you’ve failed to do first-hand research?
My initial challenge to ears_to_hear was his assetion that EVERYTHING is caused by God.
I did nothing to deserve my salvation aside from accepting what Christ did for me.
I think accepting Christ as one’s Savior is always a rational decision. It certainly does not mean emotions are not involved, because they are in many cases. Mormons rely heavily on appeals to emotions for their converts, so one cannot trust emotions. There is certainly involvement of the Holy Spirit.
I think a person can use their freewill to either accept or reject Christ. If a person can use freewill to reject Christ, then it makes sense that the same freewill can be excercised to accept Christ.
This went virtually unchallenged until the reformation.
Try and find an Early Church Father who denied this? Actual writing,not someones interpretation of them
Since Simeon prophesized at the Presentation of Our Lord in the Temple that "a sword will pierce your heart also," the Blessed Virgin's sorrows are often represented as swords.
1. the prophecy of Simeon;
2. the flight into Egypt;
3. losing the Holy Child at Jerusalem;
4. meeting Jesus on his way to Calvary;
5. standing at the foot of the Cross;
6. Jesus being taken from the Cross;
7. the burial of Christ.
ONE instant in a still light
He saw Our Lady, then
Her dress was soft as western sky,
And she was a queen most womanly,
But she was a queen of men.
And over the iron forest
He saw Our Lady stand,
Her eyes were sad withouten art
And seven swords were in her heart,
But one was in her hand.
- G.K. Chesterton, "The Ballad of Alfred"
The early RCC church and church fathers did not require priests to be unmarried and celibate, did they? Were they wrong on that matter? Can't pick and choose. They were generally good, but fallible men.
I prefer to keep my personal relationshp with Christ based on His righteouness and the atonement fully completed on the cross. Not on John Calvin, the Catholic church or anyone else. While I am not a Calvinist, to leave the Protestant church and move over to Catholicism base on Calvinism is pure foolishness. With Scripture as the basis of our doctrine, Catholicism is simply apostate Christianity.
Priests being unmarried is not dogma. It could possibly change in the future.
No doubt, apostasy within the Church came very early in Church history. Thank God for the true remnant that remained faithful.
Actually, you DO "worship" her [Mary], you're just ever so careful to make the distinction between dulia and hyper-dulia.
The short answer is that dulia refers to the honor/veneration given to saints, and hyper-dulia refers a greater degree of same given to Mary. Latria means worship (as opposed to mere honor), which is given to God alone.
Quoting from New Advent (again, emphasis mine):
"Dulia (Greek doulia; Latin servitus), a theological term signifying the honour paid to the saints, while latria means worship given to God alone, and hyperdulia the veneration offered to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, X, ii, 1) distinguishes two kinds of servitus: "one which is due to men . . . which in Greek is called dulia; the other, latria, which is the service pertaining to the worship of God".
[snip]
Catholic theologians insist that the difference is one of kind and not merely of degree; dulia and latria being as far apart as are the creature and the Creator."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm
The last sentence above is the key, in my opinion; it "cuts right to the chase".
Let it sink in for a moment: "dulia and latria being as far apart as are the creature and the Creator."
I'll freely admit that at one time I was ignorant of the difference between dulia (which includes hyper-dulia) and latria, but once I actually heard it explained, it made perfect sense. I look at it this way: I try to love my neighbor, but I have to admit that I love my friends more, family still more, and I love God most of all. And then aside from those various types of human love, there's a different type of love which applies to beloved pets. I think those distinctions are quite natural for most of us.
I hope this explanation helped, at least a little :) For me, it was a relief when I was finally able (with the help of some very patient FReepers, and a little outside reading of my own) to resolve a long-held misconception of "what Catholics really believe."
Have a joyous Sunday!
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.