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.
FACT! or FICTION! (They both begin with "F" so they're the same thing according to the logic introduced here.)
huh?
It is being argued that since we say Mary was without sin therefore we are “making her” equal to Jesus. This is of course nonsense whose logic logic of this escapes me. But both “Fact” and “Fiction” share the same initial, so the logic is that they are the same in every respect.
Salt is white.
Adolf Hitler was white.
Therefore (wait for it)
Adolf Hitler enhances the flavor of food.
I no worry, OR!
OH wait, I thought you were questioning 10181 but I see you were questioning my response to you. Kindly disregard it is complete nonsense. I was just celebrating the barnyard fowl thread from last night.
Nobody has EVER suggested that the Blessed Virgin Mary was "perfect" and I challenge you to show otherwise.
The 'fully human' definition as being sinless is from one of your fellow RCC posters, it is not mine.
I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here. The immaculate state of Mary's soul does not make her "perfect" or "divine" in any way.
Please tell me, what does the phrase, "Blessed art thou AMONG women mean to you"?
Wait!
Sophistical arguments raise my blood pressure.
Salt raises my blood pressure
Therefore Adolf Hitler should be rubbed on the edge of my Margarita glass (and sophistical arguments are white.)
Who are you who is so wise in the ways of science?
For example, because of concupiscence, a big chunk of our energy is spent resisting impulses to intemperance or whatever. That is energy we could have used for thought or prayer or concentration generally. And concupiscence is strong enough that we make lousy choices, yielding our "subjective principle of volition" (Kant) to desire without consideration of the outcome or the relationship between the particular act and our lives as a whole. That's not what God had in mind, I suggest. So we are not fully human.
Mary is without sin, therefore she is fully human. It is not wrong to say she is "perfect" in that limited respect.
It IS wrong to say she is absolutely perfect. A sinless baby would be, with respect to being a baby, perfect. But she still has to learn to walk, talk, and do other age appropriate stuff. The thought experiment "perfect baby" still has further perfection to gain. "perfect" is a word that has to be used carefully, I think and with an awareness of nuance.
Slash and burn theologians will use it poorly.
Syosset High School, Syosset Long Island, 1965. Regents Diploma. They taught me how to drink, uh, think, I said think.
Where did you get the picture of the back of an Episcopal bishop?
HOORAY! FRESH BLUDGEONS!
</MouthBreathingAnti-CatholicBigot>
Yeah, I said, "Distinguo."
You heard about the Jewish guy who was going to be knighted. And when you kneel befoe the queen to be "dubbed" there's a formula you''re supposed to say. But he forgot it.
So when he knelt he said, "Mah Nishtana Halaila Hazeh Mikol Haleilot"
So the Queen turned to her chamberlain and said, "Why is this knight different from all other knights?"
Hmmm. . . . there are a lot of different aspects to this, but I'll try to see if I can make any sense of this.
1. For starters, your claim of "hundreds of millions" is impossible to support. There simply weren't enough people in the world. The explosion in population began in the early 19th Century (there were more people born in the 1800s than in the previous eight centuries combined) and you have already acknowledged that the Church is not accountable for deaths after 1798.
2. Next, it is intellectually dishonest for you to implicate the Catholic Church and not Christianity as a whole for deaths prior to Luther. Unless of course you are suggesting that Christendom should have simply ceded the Holy Land to Islam.
3. The Inquisition is always a popular subject to bring up, but the reality is that most, several thousand were killed (many who were condemned were not even present for their trials and dummies were burned at the stake in their stead). Don't get me wrong, the torture and executions of the Inquisition were reprehensible, but the numbers were not that great. Of a far greater magnitude would be the numbers killed by LUTHER'S followers during the German Peasants' War of 1524-25, these estimates range any where from 100,000 to 300,000 and it was the largest "revolution" in Europe until the French Revolution nearly 300 years later.
4. The majority of wars fought in Europe were between kings, they had almost nothing to do with religion. The only two real exceptions to this would be the French Religious Wars and the Thirty Years War. The French Religious Wars had a death toll of just over 3 million and while both sides were somewhat at fault, I will ackowledge that the Huguenots got the worst of it. The Thirty Years War counted about 7 million deaths which were pretty much evenly divided between Catholics and Protestants and, while the war was nominally about religion, it also was largely political.
I think the biggest thing to realize is that today civilized Christians understand that killing another person in the name of religion is simply wrong. However, the world of five hundred years ago was a very different place. NOBODY valued human life as we do today.
Beautiful!
John, the longest living Apostle, was entrusted with the care of Mary. He wrote the last book of the NT. The Apostolic era ended with his death. He never wrote about Mary and her supposed assumption. He was either incompetent and did not know, or it did not occur.
The answer is obvious to any one who wants to ponder the evidence.
***Applause. I take this as your tribute to me for having explained just what it was that you posted, rather than what I suppose you meant.
ROTFLMAO!!! No, I was trying to politely show you the definition and use of the word, wherein only one use was as you describe. Perhaps a quick look at the thesaurus: ***
And polite you are on a thread where sharp elbows are the norm. However, if I may point out the phrase “trappings of empire” has a rather definite meaning, then that is the crux of my prior post.
I don’t find the theology of death very funny. However, you are welcome to your opinion.
Where does the Bible say that the Gospels were transcribed directly from God?
Matthew
Chapter 1
1
1 2 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
2
Abraham became the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers.
3
Judah became the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar. Perez became the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram,
4
Ram the father of Amminadab. Amminadab became the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon,
5
Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab. Boaz became the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth. Obed became the father of Jesse,
6
Jesse the father of David the king. David became the father of Solomon, whose mother had been the wife of Uriah.
Mark
Chapter 1
1
1 2 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ (the Son of God).
2
As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: 3 “Behold, I am sending my messenger ahead of you; he will prepare your way.
3
A voice of one crying out in the desert: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths.’”
4
John (the) Baptist appeared in the desert proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
Luke
Chapter 1
1
1 Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us,
2
just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us,
3
I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus,
4
so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.
John
Chapter 1
1
1 2 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2
He was in the beginning with God.
Nothing here about being commanded to write anything down directly from God. Read Luke: I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you.
Luke DECIDED after INVESTIGATING to write things down. The fantasy of Biblical transcription of God is refuted in the Bible.
***Well, as you know, I don’t feel that way.***
I think that you and I both believe that Jesus came for all men and that it is individual men who hose it up for themselves and not accept the Grace of God.
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.