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.

That is from the Start menu: http://img.labnol.org/di/windows-8-screen.jpg

I do not see it either as i use Classic Shell. But try holding down the Windows key and “i”, then hit Change PC settings bottom right, and then do Alt and F4 keys and you should see it. Click on Desktop from there.

I am running the free evaluation copy of W/8 64bit as i am trying to get more life out of this 7 year old PC (2.8ghz dual core cpu, 3.5 WE score due to low end graphics), which uses up most of the 3gb of ram under XP as it is 32bit.

But the processor is 64 bit, which can handle 4gb or more, but 4gb is all the Intel 945 mobo can handle. However, i found out after installing W/8 and spending 17.00 for a 2gb stick of DDr2 ram that it really can only handle 3.5gb of ram as the Intel 945 mobo does not support memory mapping above the 4Gb line, and it uses 512mb itself. But XP 32bit only seems to handle 3gb reegardless

But it is a little faster as before i had two 512mb sticks of slower memory and a 2gb stick of DDr2 5300, and i now have two 2gb sticks of DDr2 5300, giving me 4gb of 5300 dual channel memory (sticks must be matched), and i can also use ReadyBoost under W/8. To use more ram with the same CPU you would have to up the mobo to 965/56/75 , which is cheap (20.00), but would void the XP license, which i want to reinstall if needed.

I was able to get the W/8 upgrade for 30.00 at NewEgg if you deduct the 40.00 rebate card. And under the new license you can delete the W/8 OS and install it on another PC (if you forego going back to what you upgraded from), which before you could only do with the retail version.

Sounds simple right?

Simple words. Spin all you want.

Hey everyone, this poster says things like:

“All of the Lent and Easter festivities including fasting for other gods, worship of the goddess Eostre, the use of rabbits signifying sex and rapid reproduction, colored eggs symbolizing fertility in the celebration of the Spring Equinox may be pagan but God didn't say anything specific about it in scripture, so it means He smiles about it all and gets a kick out of the fuss we make over these. He really doesn't mind that the resurrection is a sideline idea as long as something is said before the big church Easter Egg Hunt.”

"Oh, and God is totally cool with parents lying to their kids about Santa Claus and the North Pole and his reindeer and elves delivering all the toys to them. It won't make any difference when they tell them about God, too, they'll just believe it because they said so and parents can always be trusted to tell the truth. The lighting of evergreen trees and decorating them DOES match what the pagans did when they worshiped in groves and though God condemned such behavior in the Old Testament he can't possibly mean it makes any difference today as long as there is a little manger scene ornament somewhere nearby, or not. It's no big deal."

Should we start spitting this out anytime you decide to post a comment on any thread on any subject from now on like you do with CB?

Nonsense all, and you did not raise any new points. I refer you to my three posts that covered all of that.

"πρεσβυτερος" in the Timothys and Titus means catholic priest.
"ιερευς" is, depending on context, Hebrew priest or Catholic priesthood in its derivation from Melchizedek, like in Hebrews. "αρχιερευς" is "Super-priest", Christ in Hebrews and chief Jewish priest otherwise.
"επισκοπος" is, if course bishop, that is a priest who is also overseer of other priests. In the early Church, there were more bishops than priests since churches were geographically dispersed.

409

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.

525

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.

666

Also useful reading from people with greater tolerance to Protestant obfuscation of scripture than I can muster: Where in the New Testament are "priests" mentioned?

Read the Bible every once in a while; toss your Protestant garbage translations; and you will become a Catholic Christian as God intended you to be.

Note: All Greek used in the posts are either the terms in dispute or are quotes identified by chapter and verse number.

Nonsense all, and you did not raise any new points. I refer you to my three posts that covered all of that.

All of which is refuted as specious argumentation, which in actuality is only based upon Roman redefinition, which your attempt to try to defend increasingly makes manifest.

"πρεσβυτερος" in the Timothys and Titus means catholic priest.

What nonsense is this? Where do you see "ιερευς"(hiereus) instead of πρεσβύτερος (presbuteros=senior)? Where do you see the latter only being used priests, or "ιερευς" for anything but priests? Why can't you just admit that your whole argument, per usual, rests upon the premise that Rome can define things as she wants, so that presbuteros=senior means they were RC priests though they are not titled hiereus?

"ιερευς" is, depending on context, Hebrew priest or Catholic priesthood in its derivation from Melchizedek...,

Rather, in the Scriptures, without RC interpolation, it only is used to refer to OT (or pagan) priests, or as archiereus (high priest), which Christ fulfilled and as such is an office He uniquely holds as high priest. Again, NOWHERE is "ιερευς" (hiereus) used to refer to the clergy of the NT church, except as part of the priesthood of all believers. And in this solitary and inclusive use of hiereus in regards to the church is contrary to presbuteros being a separate class of priests.

"επισκοπος" is, if course bishop, that is a priest who is also overseer of other priests....

More Romish reading into the text. They are simply not titled hiereus, and to make that their formal title as a distinctive class in order to conform to Rome's theology is presuming to do what the Holy Spirit did not see fit to do.

in James 5:15...Acts 20:17... 1 Timothy 4:14.. in Titus 1:5..1 Timothey 5:19..3 John 1:1

James 5:14,15 says presbuteros, not hiereus, and corresponds to Lv. 4:15 (elders=ancients) and which is not restricted to pastors (Mk. 16:18; 1Cor. 12:9) as Acts 9:10-12,17; 13:1-3 illustrates (and confessing faults is "to one another"), but can denote mature believers.

In any case exercising some of the same functions as priests does not make them a separate class formally and uniquely entitled "priests" (and which applies to the rest of your attempted proof texts, in which none are called priests) which the Holy Spirit did not see fit to call them, as there is a covenantal difference as these do not uniquely engage in offering expiatory sacrifices for sin, despite Rome's presumption that she knows better and act like the likewise presumptuous elders of Israel.

Acts 20:17: Here again the pastors are called presbuteros, not hiereus, which he also calls bishops=overseers (v. 28).

In 1 Timothy 4:14 and Titus 1:5 once again the Holy Spirit calls the pastors presbuteros, not hiereus, and having a unique shared function of ordination does not overcome the distinction btwn hiereus and presbuteros which the Holy Spirit made in what He referred to them by, as again the latter do not engage in uniquely making sacrifices for sin which the OT priesthood did in prefiguring Christ who fulfilled it. But which type of priests Rome turns presbuteros into do in formally entitling them "priests" as a distinct class, and thus does what the Holy Spirit fails to ever do.

3 John 1:1: "the elder [presbuteros] unto the wellbeloved Gaius, whom I love in the truth." Which again establishes nothing as them being a unique sacerdotal class called priests, except by Rome's extrapolative eisegesis.

1 Timothy 5:19: Wrong again; this is not a special legal privilege, as it is OT law (Dt. 17:6), and is affirmed in the NT (Mt. 18:16; 2Cor. 13:1) and applies to all. Presbuteros are specified here as treatment and discipline of them is the context, and leaders are more accountable.

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.

"Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren; 2 The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity."

You are repeating refuted arguments, and as said, that is simply desperate and reflects the elitist view of Roman priests. It is written in general terms and there simply is no warrant that would justify the women here being restricted to being a priest's wife (before Rome decided most all the clergy would have the gift of celibacy) any more than the sisters mentioned would only be a priest's daughters.

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"

Finally your real argument appears, which really means that Roman diversions from the NT church in which pastors are not called priests, in distinction from their Jewish clergy which uniquely engaged in offering up expiatory sacrifices for sin, which Christ fulfilled. And while Love "covers' a multitude of sins all can do that, but it is love of herself that drives Rome's doctrine

And having a better priesthood, He "needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore. " (Hebrews 7:27-28)

Also useful reading from people with greater tolerance to Protestant obfuscation of scripture than I can muster:

Rather, "Also useful reading from people with no greater ability at Roman obfuscation of scripture than I can muster," as it argues the same errors in asserting "the English word "priest" is derived from the Greek word presbuteros," when they are different in meaning, and the former is never distinctively used for the latter.

And the misleading "derived" is not on linguistic terms, but on functional equivalence based upon Rome making presbuteros into priests uniquely offering expiatory sacrifices for sin, thus justifying formally entitling NT clergy "priests," which again, the Holy Spirit never does, in distinction them from the Jewish priesthood. Such is the arrogance of Rome which you supreme example. .Bye

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.