Posted on 05/30/2008 10:21:34 AM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
Some of you will remember my recent decision to become a Catholic. I suppose I should be surprised it ended getting derailed into a 'Catholic vs. Protestant' thread, but after going further into the Religion forum, I suppose it's par for the course.
There seems to be a bit of big issue concerning Mary. I wanted to share an observation of sorts.
Now...although I was formerly going by 'Sola Scriptura', my father was born and raised Catholic, so I do have some knowledge of Catholic doctrine (not enough, at any rate...so consider all observations thusly).
Mary as a 'co-redeemer', Mary as someone to intercede for us with regards to our Lord Jesus.
Now...I can definitely see how this would raise some hairs. After all, Jesus Himself said that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that none come to the Father but through Him. I completely agree.
I do notice a bit of a fundamental difference in perception though. Call it a conflict of POV. Do Catholics worship Mary (as I've seen a number of Protestants proclaim), or do they rather respect and venerate her (as I've seen Catholics claim)? Note that it's one thing to regard someone with reverence; I revere President Bush as the noted leader of the free world. I revere my father. I revere Dr. O'Neil, a humorous and brilliant math teacher at my university. It's an act of respect.
But do I WORSHIP them?
No. Big difference between respecting/revering and worshiping. At least, that's how I view it.
I suppose it's also a foible to ask Mary to pray for us, on our behalf...but don't we tend to also ask other people to pray for us? Doesn't President Bush ask for people to pray for him? Don't we ask our family members to pray for us for protection while on a trip? I don't see quite a big disconnect between that and asking Mary to help pray for our wellbeing.
There is some question to the fact that she is physically dead. Though it stands to consider that she is still alive, in Heaven. Is it not common practice to not just regard our physical life, but to regard most of all our spirit, our soul? That which survives the flesh before ascending to Heaven or descending to Hell after God's judgment?
I don't think it's that big of a deal. I could change my mind after reading more in-depth, but I don't think that the Catholic Church has decreed via papal infallibility that Mary is to be placed on a higher pedestal than Jesus, or even to be His equal.
Do I think she is someone to be revered and respected? Certainly. She is the mother of Jesus, who knew Him for His entire life as a human on Earth. Given that He respected her (for He came to fulfill the old laws; including 'Honor Thy Father and Mother'), I don't think it's unnatural for other humans to do the same. I think it's somewhat presumptuous to regard it on the same level as idolatry or supplanting Jesus with another.
In a way, I guess the way Catholics treat Mary and the saints is similar to how the masses treated the Apostles following the Resurrection and Jesus's Ascension: people who are considered holy in that they have a deep connection with Jesus and His Word, His Teachings, His Message. As the Apostles spread the Good News and are remembered and revered to this day for their work, so to are the works of those sainted remembered and revered. Likewise with Mary. Are the Apostles worshiped? No. That's how it holds with Mary and the saints.
At least, that's how my initial thoughts on the subject are. I'll have to do more reading.
They're not dead.
Is God a premillennial dispensationalist?
You said: Do you mind if I swipe it for future use?
Use away.
All of the believers who we scattered from Jerusalem and Judea went everywhere preaching to none but to the Jews ONLY all the way through Acts chapter 11 (Acts 11:19).
How is any “perpetual” Church visible on Earth today like that group?
The Mystery of the Church.
Jew and Gentile believers, placed into one Body by an operation of God
not revealed to anybody until it was revealed to the apostle Paul.
“If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
“How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, {afore...: or, a little before}
“Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
“Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; . . . “ (Ephesians 3:2-5)
No other Apostles spoke like this.
“Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; {to fulfil...: or, fully to preach the word}
“Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: . . .”
(Colossians 1:25, 26)
It was NOT revealed in the Gospels. The revelation of it would have required an understanding of the Cross-Work of Christ, which was NOT understood by any Apostles prior to the Resurrection of Christ. (Luke 18:31-34)
Peter and the Eleven could have well understood an Israelitish ekklesia, because such was prophesied in the Old Testament. They could have also understood the postition of the Gentile nations as being blessed with Israel (that is Israel when right with Jehovah). And the Twelve were promised twelve thrones judging the TWELVE TRIBES of ISRAEL (Matthew 19:28)(NOT judging the New Testament Body of Christ, nor being priests over them).
Peter himself said that All of the children of God today are priests (1 Peter 2:5), to offer up spiritual sacrifices to God (Hebrews 13:15, 16; Romans 12:1; Philippians 2:17; 4:18; etc.)
The Twelve, until the the conversion and calling of the Apostle Paul, had no revelation of a Church which is composed of Jew and Gentile believers in one Body, Joint-heirs together with Christ.
Thanks for your affirming comments re Biblical and Historical Truth.
ITTM
INDEED TO THE MAX
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! ITTM!
AMEN! ITTM.
A mother’s empathy does not produce spiritual existential magical theological hogwash nor UNBiblical agency. She had filled her role. She had no power nor office to elevate herself to The Cross nor any other above human average station. And there’s not a shred of remotely reliable Biblical nor historical evidence that God elevated her in any sense above that of any other Christian woman.
ITTM!
Well, as you know, I don’t feel that way.
If Jesus could take all HE did out of love for mankind, how can we feel sorry for ourselves when we get a few harsh words flying our way?
“Bah! We do not bow down to the Bible, nor do we serve it. we neither kiss it, or light candles about it, nor lay it in a bed of flowers. We consider it Holy for what it contains, we search it always, eagerly, even as the Bereans did to find out if “what it says is true”... We await it’s revelations of God’s prophecies coming true in our time. We seek out the words of our Father, our Lord and His apostles, to do as they have told us to do.”
Well said! Amen and press on!
True. True.
Adam was sinless (at first) but saying that in blasphemous? Wow!
Adam was sinless (at first) but saying that in blasphemous? Wow!
The idea of "argument" here is that one person just says the same thing over and over again in different ways. Sometimes he uses big letters and dark type. When he disagrees with his interlocutor it is appropriate to exercise sarcastic anger. And the very stuff of theological discussion, distinction, is called a smoke screen. Woe to anyone who disagrees!
Cut me a large slice of break, please.
FACT!
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.