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.
Thank you for your reply...Yes, Judith Anne, made a powerful statement, didn’t she?
:14 What shall we say then Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid .
9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy
God is an absolute ruler and He can do with His creation whatever He wants. He deals with those who never heard the gospel as He wills. He opens the books and judges them on their merits.
Revelation 20:12
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
He is God. He is Love. He can do ANYTHING. Any attempt to limit Him or His Love for His creation is, in my opinion, a rejection of Him.
Amen to this.
AARRGH! screesplotz! You DRINK that stuff? We use it as hubcap polish on our saucers.
I know... It was an unfortunate coincidence, kind of like when one is in a Scotsman's house around dinner time, and finding to one's dismay, that haggis is on the menu... You might try some haggis on those hubcaps, come to think of it.
HUBCAPS on your saucer??? How very '50's of you... It wasn't one of you fellows who fell off the intergalactic tollway and smacked into Roswell, NM, was it?
We just don't think that our tradition is "traditions of men". We have this treasure in extremely earthen vessels, some KIND of earthen, and we trust in God to keep us out of the soup.
Yet the Marian doctrines serve perfectly the same function as those which Christ abhorred- adding to God's word to make it null, or at least different. I don't want you to think that said with an accusing tone, but one must admit, it seems an awfully bold position, don't you think?
[...] The controversy percolates for a while [...]. Then the Church leadership goes into a huddle and comes out with, "It seems good to us and to the Holy Spirit ....."
That's a precedent, for us. It's an indication of how the Church functions.
That isn't an uncommon process in Protestant churches (and synods, etc) either...
And the first thing is that it is largely reactive. "Sinless" Mary seems to be thought of as far back as the mid fourth century when, I am told, Ephrem the Syrian describes the tradition as coming from the Apostles.
I am sorry, but anything coming from Catholic tradition after about 300 AD is entirely suspect, and that arising before that date must be nearly so... The RCC was very faithful in preserving the Scripture, but I am not convinced that the same can be said for Traditions. It is a concern of mine.
It is discussed back and forth and up and down for 1,500 years! Finally the Pope asks all the bishops what they think. They tell him and most of them are for "immaculate conception". So finally, after maybe more than a millennium and a half, the Pope rears back and lets fly. Similarly with closing the OT canon and with transubstantiation.
[...] again, after extremely lengthy debate or an articulation of a strong opinion which the Catholic Church finds unacceptable, then the Church does its declaring and defining thing.
And therein lies concern. It seems that a popular notion, bound to enough time, is enough to promote that notion's acceptance. That is precisely what worries me, as there is no singular authority. It is for that reason that sola scriptura is held in high esteem by Protestants.
Now if the Scriptures said, absolutely unequivocally, "Ain't no way Mary was immaculately conceived," I think the conversation would not have gone on for long. So in answer to the question:
[Regarding said scantiness of evidence: DOESN'T THAT BOTHER YOU?]
I cheerfully say, Nope.
GADZOOKS, man! How perilous!
But we think that the Easter Evening and Pentecost gifts make a new and different pledge to the "Assembly of the Lord" and promise its preservation in dogma (and that's important) from the liabilities of the community of the old covenant. (The "in dogma" restriction is because we know that guys themselves or often jerks and bozos, uh, I mean to say, earthen vessels.
Well, I don't want to sound to forward on this issue, but considering the monumental rift between the Protestants and the RCC and the even longer standing problem between the Eastern Orthodox and the RCC, What is it that assures you that your branch has in fact been maintained above the other confessions? After all, all three were birthed from the Apostolic Church... What says that your doctrine supersedes the others (and plz, let's not go on about apostolic succession and all that)?
But, well, as I tried to suggest in the lengthy #4500, the law of the Medes and the Persians don't back up too good, but it can't be capricious, as Darius discovered. If you have infallibility hanging over you, if you know that "Oops!" is not going to be an option, you watch what you say.
But "oops!" is ALWAYS an option, Dawg, and there is plenty of history to prove that it is not absent in the RCC... The whole 'infalability' thing is old and tired by now, as one must certainly admit.
[...] I DO know that the Inquisition has a totally horrible reputation and that SOME of that is deserved, but some not. An historian told me some months back that in the Spanish Inquisition what is NOT reported was that some miscreants charged with secular offenses would say, "OH yeah, and the Pope's mother wears combat boots," in hopes that they'd come before the Inquisition which was more merciful, as a rule, and had better "processes" than the secular courts.
Of course they would if they were Catholics... I am afraid we will have to disagree regarding the Inquisition(s). The "SOME" which you refer to is very nearly the definition of atrocity, and done with the blessing of the RCC and in Christ's name. More than that, and my real contention with the RCC, was it's wandering down the lily strewn path of empire. RCs are quick to say there was nothing but the RCC for 1500 years, but they always leave off the reason: Because the Holy Roman Empire, the modern foundation of the RCC, crushed it's naysayers and competitors unmercifully. There was no opposition to the Catholic view because those who opposed her died horribly. Those deemed heretical are gone, along with most of their writings, so there is no way to judge those earlier "protestants" as to their veracity of claim.
[...] if the usual secular punishment for high treason is so awful that I cannot bring myself to describe it here, then in its context, some of the atrocities are not forgivable, but at least understandable.
Considering the torture chambers known to history, Considering the wholesale slaughter of men, women, and children, whole communities, deigned to be heretic, all I can say is... Oof.
But I see that viewed from the outside, this seems like a self-justifying circular sort of thing. We're going to say, again and again, that we think that God will simply not allow heresy to enter. Period. Not because WE're good, the evidence that we are not is too great to contradict, but because HE is.
And I will continue to say that Protestantism should be a wakeup call to the RCC that they have fallen by the way. There is no way that Jesus would allow such strife in his Church without it being corrective, and I think it should be viewed as such.
Look at it from my POV for a second. JP2, whom I really really liked a LOT, (he's certainly one of the phenoms that made converting easier for me) dies. The Cardinals meet.
Ahh... the 'vicary pickery proc.' (Sorry, I couldn't help myself)
I KNOW that there are a few bozos among them, and I suppose there are some whom I do not know. I'm sitting there wondering if they're going to elect some, "Let it all hang out, break out the guitars, kumbaya," kind of guy. So my faith in what I take to be God's promise to the Church is challenged throughout the brief conclave. I have to re-examine my trust in God. And I do two things. I pray to God to be faithful to His promise and to give me the grace of further and deeper confidence in Him.
I really hope that works for you FRiend. I am glad that we as Protestants need not worry, for our leader never dies. ;)
I know the real deal is not the watered silk, but what the guys think about, and pray about, in their underwear. It's easier to believe in MY interpretation of Scripture, and I've studied it some, than to let God handle it. But for me to trust the Church IS to let God handle it, or feels like that. He's the one I pour my heart out to anyway ....
Again, I am glad it works for you, but I cannot get past the obvious changes to the Holy Word of God. I cannot abide it, as He has said His word NEVER changes. It is that which is the primary cause for sola scriptura- God's Word is set in stone, and we can rely upon it to judge those things which are against Him by that very Word.
I really mean that, too. I mean Old Testament Word. God laid out how it was best for Man to live, and that hasn't changed either. His Sabbath and Holidays, His ordinances and laws. Why would ANY of that change? If it was good for Man then, what makes us think to do differently, and to expect blessing from it? In fact, everyone knows that Kosher laws are very healthful. The blood and the fat are for God, and here we find out that blood tainted meat passes infection, and fat is very bad for the human body. One can certainly see the effect of dishonoring His morality laws in the world around us today.
If anything, I think Protestants are not close enough to sola scriptura, not to mention the RCC. When Christ comes, and we bow before our King, have we any doubt that that which He set forth then would be any different now?
Sorry your health is interfering [...] I'll nag God about your health tonight.
Thank you for your kind concern, and for your prayers.
FReegards
Deservedly so. Proposing to use the Bible as a "Constitution" without any authoritative "judiciary" is to play ala carte Christian.
This is evident in Marianism. Marianism is the most damning evidence of RC disrespect for the Word of God and, therefore, God Himself.
To the contrary, the blatant hypocrisy of Protestant hermeneutics proves they have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof in that they refuse to submit to the Full Gospel Christianity of the Catholic Church, and contrive a neverending stream of accusations to justify their rebellion.
And in general, the way this section points out that the Catechism is an organic unity should serve as a warning that wrenching a line or two out of context will not provide one with sound arguments.
Happy Sunday, to those who celebrate the Lord's Resurrection on this day of the week. Well, and happy Sunday to those who don't!
Peter knew NOTHING of a perpetual New Testament Church or of a Church Age. He preached ONLY to the Nation of Israel, and the Elders of Israel. His audiences are named specifically in Acts chapters 2 through 6.
In that setting, Peter absolutely has authority, and could be said to be chief among the Twelve. Those Twelve were promised Twelve Thrones of their own, to judge THE TWELVE TRIBES OF ISRAEL, NOT the New Testament Church as we have known it since Acts 16 and 17. Peter will one day sit on one of those thrones. He never sat on a papal throne. His ministry was to the circumcision (Galatians chapter 2) — That's ISRAEL.
_________________________________________________
“Paul has his own ministry; but even Paul defers to Peter.
He came to the Apostles and had to have Peter convinced that he was indeed appointed by Christ.” (MarkBsnr)
__________________________________________________
In Acts chapter 9, Barnabas brought Paul to the Apostles, but Peter is not mentioned specifically, nor that he made any particular rule in the matter. It's not mentioned that he spoke one single word.
If Peter was the “Vicar of Christ,” why didn't he know from Christ directly that Paul was a chosen vessel of God, and, as you say, “had to have Peter convinced.”
Paul deferred to Peter??? Can't see it in the light of Galatians chapters 1 and 2. Paul went up to Jerusalem three years after he returned from Arabia; that would be three years after he received his commission and his Gospel. WHICH HE RECEIVED FROM NO MAN (Galatians 1:11, 12, 17, 18)
Paul went up and spent 15 days with Peter, and some time with James, the Lord's Brother. THE TEXT SAYS NOTHING —NOTHING AT ALL — ABOUT HAVING TO CONVINCE PETER OF ANYTHING. You ONLY know that Paul spent 15 days with Peter.
Paul could have wanted to introduce himself and fellowship with Peter. The text (Galatians ch. 1) does not tell us. Paul could have been instructed by the Lord to go let Peter know that Peter's ministry was going to wane and ‘Peter’ out, and that Paul's ministry was now going to be magnified.
Paul could have have been sent to Jerusalem as the one who had been on an Arabian mountain with God like Moses, having become the “Moses” of the New Testament Church (the Body of Christ) - to write the CHURCH Epistles for the CHURCH AGE.
In other words, Paul's journey to Jerusalem could just as easily have been to MAGNIFY HIS OFFICE (Romans 11:13) and to lovingly inform Peter to be prepared to move over and accept a diminishing ministry, as Israel, the focus of Peter's ministry was DIMINISHING, as per Romans 11:12.
And I rather like to read the story of Peter having to defer to Paul!
“But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
“And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
“To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
“But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: . . .”
” . . . those who seemed to be somewhat . . .” included PETER. And Paul stated that it made no difference to him, because God accepts NO MAN'S PERSON. Peter, NOR any of the apostles, could ADD ANYTHING to Paul. (Galatians 2:6)
The Apostle Paul was NOT subject to Peter in any way shape or form.
And then later Paul had to WITHSTAND Peter TO THE FACE. Paul put his big nose on Peter's big nose and BLAMED Peter FOR NOT WALKING UPRIGHTLY ACCORDING TO THE TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL. Paul REBUKED Peter in front of everybody for WRONG DOCTRINE AND PRACTICE, AND FOR CAUSING OTHERS TO STUMBLE. (I guess it could happen to any “pope.”)
***A perpetual office at that? How is any perpetuity of any OFFICE taught in Matthew ch. 16? Logically, if Matthew 16 is teaching a perpetuity of OFFICE, then shouldn’t Peter himself should be getting as much OR MORE attention than Mary?*** (John Leland 1789)
_____________________________________________________
“Why would Jesus build His Church upon the human Peter if that Church would die with Peter?” (MarkBsnr)
______________________________________________________
There is nothing at all visible on earth since 70 AD that could remotely be said to be built upon Peter, IF anything ever was to begin with. The focus of Peter's ministry, Israel and the circumcision, are NOT the focus in this age.
***The wicked are wicked from birth. They are not blank slates. They are born depraved. Further, they like wickedness and they do it all the day long. They dislike the Light, because the Light will reveal them for what they are.***
The love and mercy of God enables all men to repent and be saved.
Luke 2:
8
4 Now there were shepherds in that region living in the fields and keeping the night watch over their flock.
9
The angel of the Lord appeared to them and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were struck with great fear.
10
The angel said to them, “Do not be afraid; for behold, I proclaim to you good news of great joy that will be for all the people.
11
5 For today in the city of David a savior has been born for you who is Messiah and Lord.
***How would I know. You can check that out yourself. People do know the differences between what cults teach and what bonafide churches who preach the gospel teach. It’s not rocket science. The author has probably studied this for years.***
Do you see my point? You concede authenticity without knowing authenticity.
***Be very careful to what you attribute the Holy Spirit. He IS in the reformed who receive Him. God knows. Do you?***
The Holy Spirit of Scripture has no need of Reforming.
***The Rev. 20:15 when coupled with Rev. 17:8 says that God before the foundation of the world elected some to life and those who were not elect were destined to hell.***
Rev 17:8
The beast that you saw existed once but now exists no longer. It will come up from the abyss and is headed for destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world shall be amazed when they see the beast, because it existed once but exists no longer, and yet it will come again.
Rev 20:15
Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the pool of fire.
It doesn’t say that individuals are predestined to hell. It says that God knows who will be unrepentent, but not that He predestined them to be.
***No one has said they knew who was predestined to hell.***
I was told by a poster here numerous times that I am going to hell. The subject of me being predestined did not arise, though.
However, the question stands: if people are predestined to hell, who are they?
Except of course for the Catholic Church.
***If as you assert, none can come to Christ, unless the Father calls him and the rest are condemned to Hell, then what happens to those that have never even heard about Christ...***
Unknown. We can only go by the Words of Jesus and the teachings of the Church.
A good deal of Calvinism is based on the faulty conflation of "foreknown" with "foreordained." They are NOT the same.
True.
I may be a sap and a flake but what a horrible thought. I don’t think I’d want any children if I believed that they would possibly wicked from birth with no chance that God could intervene in their lives and that they could be reborn.
I don’t know the Catholic teaching on the verse she references but it could definitely be referring to original sin and we know what can be done for that by the Grace of God.
Men are not saved by their good works which are as "filthy rags" to God.
Men are saved by God's grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone.
Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." -- Titus 3:5-7"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
“I was told by a poster here numerous times that I am going to hell.”
That makes two of us. I have been told many times to go to hell.
“However, the question stands: if people are predestined to hell, who are they?”
Those who have not trusted Christ for their salvation, i.e. their names were not written in the Lamb’s Book of Life before the foundation of eh world. God only knows!
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.