Posted on 10/08/2015 8:02:23 AM PDT by Salvation
As a young child I was very close to God. I spoke to Him in a very natural way and He spoke plainly to me. Although I have very few memories of my early childhood, I vividly remember how close I was to God. When early puberty approached, though, I began to slip away, drifting into the rebellious and angry years of my teens. As the flesh came more alive, my spirit submerged.
The culture of the time didn’t help, either. It was the late 1960s and early 1970s and rebelliousness and the flesh were celebrated as “virtues.” Somehow we thought ourselves more mature than our pathetic forebears, who were hopelessly “repressed.” There was the attitude among the young that we had come of age somehow. We collectively deluded ourselves, aided by the messages of rock music and the haze of drug use, that we were somehow “better.”
So it was the winter of my soul. The vivid faith of my childhood gave way to a kind of indifferent agnosticism. Though I never formally left Church (my mother would never had permitted that as long as I lived in under my parents’ roof), I no longer heard God or spoke to Him. I’ve mentioned in previous posts that when I was in high school I joined the youth choir of my parish church. This was not precipitated by a religious passion, but rather by a passion of another kind: there were pretty girls in the choir and I “sought their company,” shall we say. But God has a way of using beauty to draw us to the truth. Week after week, year after year, as we sang those old religious classics a buried faith began to awaken within me.
But what to do? How to pray? I heard that I was supposed to pray. But how? As a child it had been natural to talk with God. But now He seemed distant, aloof, and likely angry with me. And I’ll admit it, prayer seemed a little “goofy” to me, a high school senior still struggling to be “cool” in his own eyes and in the eyes of his friends. Not only that, but prayer was “boring.” It seemed an unfocused, unstructured, and “goofy” thing.
But I knew someone who did pray. My paternal grandmother, “Nana,” was a real prayer warrior. Every day she took out her beads and sat by the window to pray. I had seen my mother pray now and again, but she was more private about it. But Nana, who lived with us off and on in her last years, knew how to pray and you could see it every day.
Rosary Redivivus – In my parish church of the 1970s, the rosary was non-existent. Devotions and adoration were on the outs during that sterile time. Even the Crucifix was gone. But Nana had that “old-time religion” and I learned to appreciate it through her.
Ad Jesum per Mariam – There are some, non-Catholics especially, who think that talking of Mary or focusing on her in any way takes away from Christ. It is as though they consider it a zero-sum game, in which our hearts cannot love both Mary and Jesus. But my own experience was that Mary led me to Christ. I had struggled to know and worship Christ, but somehow a mother’s love felt more natural, safer, and more accessible to me. So I began there, where I could. Simply pole-vaulting right into a mature faith from where I was did not seem possible. So I began, as a little child again, holding my Mother’s hand. And gently, Mother Mary led me to Christ, her son. Through the rosary, that “Gospel on a string,” I became reacquainted with the basic gospel story.
The thing about Marian devotion is that it opens up a whole world. For with this devotion comes an open door into so many of the other traditions and devotions of the Church: Eucharistic adoration, litanies, traditional Marian hymns, lighting candles, modesty, pious demeanor, and so forth. So as Mary led me, she also reconnected me to many things that I only vaguely remembered. The suburban Catholicism of the 1970s had all but cast these things aside, and I had lost them as well. Now in my late teens, I was going up into the Church “attic” and bringing things down. Thus, little by little, Mother Mary was helping me to put things back in place. I remember my own mother being pleased to discover that I had taken some old religious statues, stashed away in a drawer in my room, and placed them out on my dresser once again. I also took down the crazy rock-and-roll posters, one by one, and replaced them with traditional art, including a picture of Mary.
Over time, praying the Rosary and talking to Mary began to feel natural. And, sure enough, little by little, I began to speak with God. It was when I was in the middle of college that I began to sense the call to the priesthood. I had become the choir director by that time and took a new job in a city parish: you guessed it, “St. Mary’s.” There, the sterility of suburban Catholicism had never taken hold. The candles burned brightly at the side altars. The beautiful windows, marble altars, statues, and traditional novenas were all on display in Mother Mary’s parish. The rest is history. Mary cemented the deal between me and her Son, Jesus. I became His priest and now I can’t stop talking about Him! He is my hero, my savior and Lord. And praying again to God has become more natural and more deeply spiritual for me.
It all began one day when I took Mary’s hand and let her lead me to Christ. And hasn’t that always been her role? She, by God’s grace, brought Christ to us, showed Him to us at Bethlehem, presented Him in the Temple, and ushered in His first miracle (even despite His reluctance). She said to the stewards that day at Cana, and to us now, “Do whatever he tells you.” The Gospel of John says, Jesus did this as the beginning of his signs in Cana in Galilee and so revealed his glory, and his disciples began to believe in him (John 2:11). And so Mary’s intercession strengthened the faith of others in her Son. That has always been her role: to take us by the hand and lead us to Christ. Her rosary has been called the “Gospel on a string” because she bids us to reflect on the central mysteries of the Scripture as we pray.
Best advice any human person ever gave.
It is really ill-advised to confer upon Mary titles not appropriated to her in the Word.....like Blessed.
In the Bible:
“Blessed are you among women,
and blessed is the fruit of your womb”
(Lk 1:42).
That's some claim, ealgone. Please direct us to the "Roman Catholic apologists" who 'admit that the Immaculate Conception is not supported "in the Word." Thanks in advance.
No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
Those are your words....not mine.
what I do not like are the false teachings of the roman catholic church regarding Mary, the mother of Christ.
Really? You never heard of Luke 1:48 — “Behold, from now on all generations will call me Blessed”?
Discuss the issues all you want but do not make it personal.
No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.To say that there is "no direct or categorical and stringent proof" of the Immaculate Conception is not the same as saying that the Immaculate Conception "is not supported" in the Word.
To illustrate the difference, one could still find "support" for the dogma of the Trinity, even though "no direct or categorical and stringent proof" of the Trinity can be brought forward.
In my opinion it’s charity to assume those who’s seeming mission in life is to attack all things and ideas “Catholic”, while with good intentions, are indeed misinformed and thus unknowing.
But that’s just my opinion. It’s been my experience it’s best to keep the charity above in mind but left unsaid. It’s just not worth it anymore to engage “the usual suspects”. It’s just not.
For anybody.
Of course, for Protestants the way to go is from the Bible only. If it's NOT in the Bible, then it's not real.
http://www.catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=40129
Over the last 25 years I've had more debates than I can count with Christians of various denominations. These conversations varied as widely as the perspectives of the different people I debated, but nearly every one eventually included the question: "Where is that in the Bible?" Why "sola scriptura" falls short and misses the mark.
By Eric Sammons
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)
1/29/2011 (4 years ago)
Published in Living Faith
GAITHERSBURG, MD (Catholic Online) -
Recently I was reading a newspaper article in which a prominent Evangelical Christian stated, "Every Christian's core beliefs ultimately rest upon the same foundation: the Bible." Over the last 25 years I've had more debates than I can count with Christians of various denominations. These conversations varied as widely as the perspectives of the different people I debated, but nearly every one eventually included the question: "Where is that in the Bible?" Whether the topic is infant baptism, purgatory, justification by faith alone or the Assumption of Mary, Scriptural support is demanded. And for good reason - after all, the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and therefore, if a belief is found in the Bible, then surely it is true.
However, there is a false presupposition lurking behind this question and the statement made by that Evangelical leader, one that is commonly held by Christians today. It is the presupposition that the Bible is the source of Christian doctrine - that the Bible contains all the teachings of the Christian Faith and its purpose is to be a catechism of sorts for our teachings and beliefs. If you read just about any book from your local Family Bookstore (a chain of Protestant Christian bookstores), the language used is soaked with this premise: "The Bible teaches.", "The Bible says.", "we see from the Bible that.". Unfortunately, this foundational tenet of Protestantism is also held by many Catholics.
This presupposition, however, is not only false, it is illogical and contrary to history. Let us take a brief look at salvation history and see how the Christian Faith was passed on to us - what is its source?
1) After the Fall, God raised up a nation (Israel) to be His people. He sent them prophets, kings and priests to teach them about the ways of God.
2) At the fullness of time, God sent His Son. This Son, Jesus Christ, preached, did mighty works, and suffered, died and rose again for our salvation.
3) The followers of Christ, especially the apostles, went about preaching the Gospel to the known world. What is this "Gospel"? It is the revelation of God centered on the person of Jesus Christ - which includes the preparations for his coming as well as his teachings, mighty works and redemptive death and resurrection.
4) Some of these followers wrote down this Gospel in letters, histories and "gospels."
5) The successors to the apostles - the bishops - continued to preach the Gospel handed on to them, guarding and protecting it from error.
The content of our Faith, then - the "Gospel" - was passed on to future generations by two methods: (oral) preaching (Tradition) and writings (Scripture). The college of bishops - the "Magisterium", or teaching office of the Church - continued to preach that Gospel through time, making sure that it was not deformed or altered. But it is important to know the order in which these things flow: the Gospel is the content of the Faith, and oral preaching and writings are the methods by which they are passed on.
An objection might be raised here that the way we know about salvation history is through the Bible, so the Bible is "before" the Gospel. However, this confuses the method in which we receive history with the history itself. One would not think that a book about Socrates is the source of his life and teachings; instead, it simply recounts what we know about him. It is a written means of teaching about who he was.
So if we want to know the source of our beliefs, we must look to the Gospel, which includes the life of ancient Israel and is fulfilled completely in the person of Jesus Christ and his life, teachings, works and redemptive suffering and death. This Gospel was passed on to the apostles, who then passed it on through their preaching and through their writings.
There is one pre-existing Gospel, then, and two methods by which we receive that Gospel, as has been the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church since its earliest days.
In the second century, St. Irenaeus, bishop of Gaul, wrote Against Heresies, which defended the Catholic Faith against the various false teachings of his day. The work is a rather difficult read, but if you are able, read Book III from the Preface through Chapter three.
In that famous section, Irenaeus lays out why the heretics' teachings should not be believed, whereas the Faith proclaimed by the Catholic Church is trustworthy:
1) The Gospel was given to the Church through the apostles (Preface-Chapter 1).
2) The Gospel was passed on to us through Scripture and Tradition, and the heretics contradict both of these pillars (Chapter 2).
3) The Gospel, passed on to us through Scripture and Tradition, is defended and protected by the successors to the apostles, the bishops (Chapter 3).
4) Therefore, if we follow the bishops, especially the bishop of Rome, then we can be assured that we are following the true Gospel (Chapter three).
---------------
The Church today follows this same divine logic. In Dei Verbum, Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, the Church beautifully and clearly articulates the relationship between the Gospel (also called "Revelation"),
1. Scripture,
2. Tradition and
3. the Magisterium.
Sections 1-6 discuss Revelation being given from God,
and sections 7-9 note the two ways in which that Revelation is handed on to us.
Finally section 10 notes the role of the Magisterium in guarding and teaching that deposit of faith.
None of this means, of course, that any part of the Gospel will contradict Scripture, Tradition or the teaching of the Magisterium. The "glue" which holds all these parts together in one unified whole is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the originator of the content of the Gospel, the inspiration of the Scriptures, the guide of Tradition, and the protector from error of the Magisterium. Left to his own devices, man would be unable to sustain consistent teaching for even a few decades, but with the Holy Spirit as its guardian, the Church faithfully passes on the authentic and saving Gospel to all generations.
So when someone asks, "where in the Bible does it say?", you can know that if the Catholic Church teaches it, it is part of the saving Gospel, which precedes the Bible and is the source of its content.
-----------------------------------
Eric Sammons is the author of the book Who is Jesus Christ? Unlocking the Mystery in the Gospel of Matthew, published by Our Sunday Visitor in September 2010. Eric, his wife and their five children live in Maryland. You may purchase Who is Jesus Christ? Unlocking the Mystery in the Gospel of Matthew here.
.
-------------------------------
There are seemingly "new" sins today: speeding, abortion, artificial birth control, driving under the influence but they aren't really NEW as when one doesn't "render unto Caesar," (tax evasion, an old sin) or one breaks a speed limit or such.
So a sin is still a sin, in whatever "new" covering it takes on.
HOWEVER, we all know that, don't we? (Rhetorical)
So he insults my mother and then cries to you. Typical.
Plus he reported me to the moderator.
Actually that is what Scott Hahn does. He’s a biblical scholar and much smarter than he is. I have no trouble making the same arguments that Mary is the mother of the church and of all Christians and the queen of heaven but he does it so well. And one of the misperceptions about Catholics is that we don’t read the Bible. I go to Mass on average two or three times a week and I read the daily readings well, daily. I have also read the entire Bible three or four times. I haven’t memorized it but have started to be able to say, “wait a minute, Paul says something about that in Romans, let me look for it.”
As far as proving a negative - hahaha. go for it.
Well put. THANK you.
I'm Catholic but my very best friend is a Presbyterian (from Baptist) and HER son became a Catholic. She's good with it because for her it doesn't matter which Christian "denomination" one belongs to as long as one belongs to Christ.
The only difference of opinion we ever had was the slightly different versions of the Bible. The Protestant Bible didn't include some BOOKS that the Catholic Bible did, that is,
Sirach,
Tobit,
Wisdom,
Judith,
1 and 2 Maccabees, and
Baruch, as well as
longer versions of Daniel and Esther.
Once we figured THAT out we KNEW the reason. It's often a problem having such differences but knowing WHY clears it all up.
The earliest Church Fathers were the ones to decide what books were in the Bible, so the decisions that were made were made a LONG time ago.
The were made before the dawn of excommunicated Catholic priest Father Martin Luther and the eventual collection of Protestant denominations.
I once looked them all up and put the list here. There were tens of thousands of them which came and went and will come and go in the future.
Some people DO feel inspired by God, DO believe that God speaks/spoke to them and DO believe that they were TOLD to begin a new denomination.
.
.
Of course, the great adversary may have been whispering heresies in their collective ears. Who knows. Not my job to judge.
When quoting from a source other than your own words, always include the source and a link or URL so we can make sure there are no copyright violations.
From the Religion Forum guidelines:
“When quoting a source, e.g. a website, article or book – be sure to include sufficient source information for the moderators to enforce copyright restrictions.”
The Religion Forum guidelines are found at the following link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/~religionmoderator/
If those are your own words the post is fine.
No one complained about your post.
I read RF threads when I have time and if I find a violation of the guidelines, I deal with it.
In the case you are referring to (post #25), it was personal.
“So he insults my mother and then cries to you. Typical.”
See my comments above your quote.
The quote is mindreading and is considered personal also.
Please go over the guidelines at the link I sent to you in a previous reply or click on my name at the bottom of this reply.
Thank you. That’s very kind. My mother is beyond saying the Rosary, I’m afraid, but we say it for her.
You have said that she is sinful and are very negative about Catholics honoring the Blessed Mother and praying to her son through her intercession.
I said that “that you espouse a form of hatred toward the Mother of God - Mary?” It is in a way a form of hate, as it was not a form of loving your neighbor as yourself.
You are certainly not going to change the Catholic position on Mary, so your negative rantings may only strengthen Catholics resolve and prayers to Mary.
What authority do you have to prove that the Catholic teachings are false? I believe that you are the false prophet or just a provocateur.
If you don’t hate Mary, then you may want to pray to her as she is trying to encourage all of us to follow Christ to Heaven.
Yes, I’ve read it. However, the Greek does not support what you are claiming it to. It is not a title much as catholics would like it to be.
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.