 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Candlemass
Member
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | Hudson, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 474 |
| First Name: | Mark | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, AOG, Baptist, non - denominational, Anglican, RCC for life! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 25th, 2008 01:02 pm |
|
This sounds to me like way beyond veneration and crossing into worship, this kind of homage to Mary is what the Protestants gasp at!
Who Are You, My Queen?
Who are you, my Queen? Who are you, Immaculate? I cannot understand what it means to be a creature of God.
Immaculate ... I turn to you in a humble prayer: Grant me the gift to praise you, Blessed Virgin ... Help me understand and express what God prepared in you and through you.
Immaculate, Queen of heaven and earth, I know I am unworthy to approach you, to fall on my knees in front of you, but since I love you so much, let me ask you, you who are so good, to tell me who you are, because I have the desire to know you more and more, without limits, and to love you with increasing fervor.
Grant me the gift to praise you, Blessed Virgin.
Let me glorify you by my sacrifice.
May I live, work, suffer, be consumed and die for you and you alone!
Prayer to the Immaculate by Father Maximilian Kolbe
Quoted in the Revue du Rosaire, February 1973
____________________
"For I the blind who once could see, the bell tolls for me!"
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2037 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sun May 25th, 2008 02:21 pm |
|
Could you point out exactly where Fr. Kolbe (now known as Saint Maximilian Kolbe) has crossed the line?
He specifically honors Mary as a “creature” of God, not as a “goddess.” He also acknowledges that whatever virtue or perfection she may possess has come from God, not from herself (“what God prepared in you and through you”).
His gestures of awe (“humble prayer,” “fall on my knees”) are courtly language of honor. These phrases existed in ancient times to honor kings and other dignitaries. They were common until the advent of modern times in Europe for the same purpose. They might exist still were it not for the prejudices brought about by Protestantism itself.
Finally, let us recall that “prayer” in its root sense (and the sense used here) is “ask.” It does not in itself imply divine worship; that is a connotation peculiar to Protestants.
So as far as I can tell, Mark, it is the Protestants themselves who are re-defining words to make them something they need not be.
David
|
|
|
Candlemass
Member
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | Hudson, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 474 |
| First Name: | Mark | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, AOG, Baptist, non - denominational, Anglican, RCC for life! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 25th, 2008 03:27 pm |
|
"Grant me the gift to praise you, Blessed Virgin.
Let me glorify you by my sacrifice.
May I live, work, suffer, be consumed and die for you and you alone!"
Glorify Mary by his sacrifice, live, work, suffer, be consumed with and die for her alone?
____________________
"For I the blind who once could see, the bell tolls for me!"
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2037 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sun May 25th, 2008 03:53 pm |
|
Perhaps what the Protestants are really protesting here is the deep commitment shown by St. Maximilian’s words. I’ve known men who did exactly this for their families and friends. Yes, a few even died to protect them. We call them heros, do we not? And did not Christ set the example here? Did he not call his followers to do the same? (John 10:15, 17; 13:37; 15:13) If St. Peter was unable to carry through on his commitment short term during his Master’s trial before the Sanhedrin, he did eventually die a martyr’s death in Rome, the shepherd laying down his life for his sheep. How is it wrong to make such a pledge to God through Mary, his mother, who herself suffered beside her Son at the crucifixion? (Luke 2:35; John 19:25)
David
|
|
|
Candlemass
Member
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | Hudson, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 474 |
| First Name: | Mark | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, AOG, Baptist, non - denominational, Anglican, RCC for life! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 25th, 2008 10:56 pm |
|
| It's just the way his words come across that he is living his life for Mary and her alone, where's Christ in this? Are you suggesting no Protestant has had a deep commitment to God in their lives, that they had not even laid down their life for the cause of Christ?
____________________
"For I the blind who once could see, the bell tolls for me!"
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2037 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Mon May 26th, 2008 01:12 am |
|
So then it is agreed that there is no biblical or doctrinal basis for the complaint. It is instead a matter of culture and sensibility. My statement above takes care of the rest: “How is it wrong to make such a pledge to God through Mary, his mother, who herself suffered beside her Son at the crucifixion?” This is the connection to God and to Christ that they are missing.
Mary served God, and more specifically her Son, Jesus the Christ, all the days of her life. If I choose to honor, serve and emulate her, how am I then serving someone other than God and Jesus? “To Jesus through Mary” is a simple thing, just as “to God through prayer.” We use a means to an end in both cases. Shall I then reject prayer because it has become an intermediary and is hindering my union with God? Nonsense! It is precisely through the means that I arrive at the end.
Are you suggesting no Protestant has had a deep commitment to God in their lives, that they had not even laid down their life for the cause of Christ?
By no means. This is why Protestant blindness to the simple logic of Mary’s guidance is so astounding. They do these things themselves and consider it a great virtue, but fail to apply the same principle to Mary.
David
|
|
|
tedjenczewski
Member
| Joined: | Thu May 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | Richmond, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 257 |
| First Name: | Ted | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, Presbyterian, revert Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 26th, 2008 01:41 am |
|
| I think you have a point here Mark. Christ is not mentioned in the prayer so one might logically conclude that Mary is the focus of divine christian worship here, and not Christ. This prayer might be unusual after the reformation, and for the 20th century. Many similar kinds of prayers were written in the 9th to 12th centuries, which, if the reader were not careful he might conclude the prayer was placing Mary on the level of God the creator. I personally have always felt uncomfortable with this level of devotion to Mary as I feel it detracts from her divine purpose as the "Arc of the new covenant", the dwelling place of the Lord", "God bearer" and his "most excellent creature". In any case, the example of Fr. Kolbe's life and self sacrifice gives witness to the love that is in us through Jesus Christ our Lord.
____________________
"...the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth." 1Tim 3, 15
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2037 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Mon May 26th, 2008 02:43 am |
|
tedjenczewski wrote:Christ is not mentioned in the prayer so one might logically conclude that Mary is the focus of divine christian worship here, and not Christ.
I’ll agree to the extent that he is not mentioned by name, but he is still explicitly referred to. “What God prepared… through you” is an obvious reference to the fruit of Mary’s womb and the advent of the new covenant. The question then becomes one of discerning the theology expressed in the prayer and thus understanding the reference. Here I think you are right in assuming that Protestants (and evidently many modern Catholics) would have difficulty doing either.
Personally have always felt uncomfortable with this level of devotion to Mary as I feel it detracts from her divine purpose as the "Ark of the new covenant", "the dwelling place of the Lord", "God bearer" and his "most excellent creature".
Yet it is precisely because of these titles and offices of Mary that St. Maximilian Kolbe addresses her with such respect, zeal and devotion. They are presupposed. In fact, he himself addresses her with the titles of Queen of Heaven and Earth (from the fifth glorious mystery of the rosary) and Immaculate (defined by dogma). So where has he gone wrong? Or is it just us again, with our wayward sensibilities?
David
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5312 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 26th, 2008 02:57 am |
|
I think a lot of the misunderstanding involves the Protestant "either/or" mentality vs. the Catholic "both/and" mentality.
As a cradle Catholic, I was raised believing that prayers to Mary were "to Jesus through Mary". As a child, Mary was presented to me (by the nuns who taught me) as taking my prayers to Jesus. There was never a moment's belief that Mary had any power or authority on her own; her only actions were those authorized and permitted by her Son.
This was in the 50's when the idea of a "personal relationship with Jesus" was not part of Catholic terminology. Mary was presented as the compassionate one. For example, we were taught that whenever we heard a siren, we should pray a Hail Mary for the intention of whoever was in trouble. Of course she could not grant favors, but she could take the request to her Son for whatever assistance might be needed. Mary would know what to ask for (as she did at Cana) and her Son would do whatever she asked (as he did at Cana). I, on the other hand, didn't know whether it was a police car, an ambulance, or a fire truck. How would I know what to ask for?
There was nothing wrong in what we were taught, but it cost us time in developing personal relationships with Jesus. Vatican II redirected our focus. Mary's role was not diminished, but the Church's focus was redirected to Jesus (and rightfully so). St. Maximillian Kolbe was raised before me, but I'm certain his mentality was the same.
Mary deserves our highest honor as the Mother of God, and she is a powerful intercessor. We know from scripture that throughout her life, Mary always honored her Son. She was his first disciple, even while teaching him his humanity and nurturing him at her breast.
A cradle Catholic would have no problem with this prayer, because we understand from the depth of our being that all honor is given to Jesus, and that Mary is only a prayer partner. "To Jesus through Mary."
Servant of God John Paul II also understood that Mary was another path through which to reach Jesus when he chose his motto, "Totus Tuus" ("Totally Yours"), and when he credited the Blessed Mother for saving his life after he was struck by an assassin's bullet. The Holy Father believed Mary was his advocate. He was also the first and only pope ever to have a letter inscribed on his papal shield. The letter is "M" for Mary.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Candlemass
Member
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | Hudson, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 474 |
| First Name: | Mark | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, AOG, Baptist, non - denominational, Anglican, RCC for life! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 26th, 2008 03:08 am |
|
Thanx Rick, that was insightful. 
____________________
"For I the blind who once could see, the bell tolls for me!"
|
|
|
Robert
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | Germany |
| Posts: | 112 |
| First Name: | Robert | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | The whole spectrum from black to white, now 100% Catholic! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 26th, 2008 10:01 am |
|
Another aspect that should always be considered is the original language the quote was taken from.
St. Maximilian Kolbe spoke and wrote Polish. As I have seen with translations from other languages, it is not uncommon that some words may have a variance in the objective understanding betwen the languages involved.
I don't know Polish, but I do know German and see qualitative differences in translations every day. E.g. one of the German words for Praise is "Lob" and another is "Preis" and still another "Verherrlichung". All will translate to English quite well to the word Praise.
But here is the understood meaning:
Lob = Praise (as in well done)
Preis = Venerate
Verherrlichung = Worship
Last edited on Mon May 26th, 2008 10:02 am by Robert
____________________
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15)
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2037 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Mon May 26th, 2008 12:18 pm |
|
I think Rick and Robert have enlarged on my point to make it abundantly clear that the real problem for most Protestants in understanding and accepting Mary is not doctrinal, but cultural. It’s a matter of custom, of language, of sensibilities — even, one might say, of etiquette.
David
|
|
|
Robert
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | Germany |
| Posts: | 112 |
| First Name: | Robert | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | The whole spectrum from black to white, now 100% Catholic! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 26th, 2008 12:32 pm |
|
Hi Dave,
etiquette? You bet!
Any friend of Jesus' Mama is a friend of mine
____________________
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15)
|
|
|
rbo4u2
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jan 16th, 2007 |
| Location: | Sunnyvale, California USA |
| Posts: | 445 |
| First Name: | Rich | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Formerly Christian & Missionary Alliance then became Presbyterian |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 26th, 2008 03:27 pm |
|
CajunRick wrote:
I think a lot of the misunderstanding involves the Protestant "either/or" mentality vs. the Catholic "both/and" mentality.
Hi guys. I'm back from vacation. I fear to wade into this issue, but what the heck? I think it's even more than a Protestant/Catholic mentality issue. I have to agree, that when taken in harmony with Catholic understanding, I as a Protestant, have no problems with Mary. Even when I read St. Louis de Montfort's True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin I have to keep reminding myself to read it with Catholic lenses. Then, I find myself in agreement.
But I really believe the problem is in our language. English changes almost on a daily basis, it seems, thanks to modern technology and the internet. I need to translate many books written in English only 20 years ago sometimes to be able to understand it today in today's vernacular. Books written 100 to 150 years ago are even more dense and difficult to translate into today's vernacular, whether they are religious or secular. Translations from other languages are even more difficult because we don't have common linguistic terminology.
I can remember back in the 60's Bill Bright of Campus Crusade for Christ wrote a book called Transferrable Concepts. In it he makes a correct judgement that the challenge for us today, (and it still applies) is to be able to take material written thousands of years ago and translate it into a language the man on the street can understand. Here I believe Protestants have done a better job than the Catholics. Much of Catholic literature is archaic and very difficult to unpack and explain without a lot of work.
I don't believe using the excuse that "well that's the way it's written by the saints" is an excuse to not make language understandable.
Remember, when St. Augustine, St. Tertullian or any of the other greats wrote they spoke and wrote to the common man back then. Their flocks understood their sermons because it was in their vernacular. So it should be today. I think if the Catholics would practice a little "Transferable Concepts" in their writings, there would be a lot more fruit.
Thankfully, some are doing that. But not enough.
O.K. I'll get off my box and starting ducking.
Rich
|
|
|
left coast mystic
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | La Honda, California USA |
| Posts: | 129 |
| First Name: | Marcee | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | nondenominational charismatic, Presbyterian, long-time lover of the RCC |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Mon May 26th, 2008 04:56 pm |
|
I agree that the issue is cultural in that it has to do with deeply held assumptions based on concepts that are absorbed from the beginning, whether your beginning is "from the cradle" or as an adult. As an adult convert to christianity (but not the RCC), I assumed from the beginning that Catholics were a bit off-track in their veneration of Mary. And this from a charismatic who had a deep appreciation of the the fact that the charismatic movement began among Catholics!
However, given the basic tenets of faith as presented to me when I became a believer, Mary simply didn't fit. It wasn't that I was exposed to any anti-Catholic teaching, but with all the emphasis on Jesus and the Holy Spirit, why did we need to converse with Mary (or anyone else who has left this earth)? We were simply taught "to go directly to the source".
So if I have a perspective that doesn't "need" Mary or the saints, it seems weird to me to give such emphasis to "conversing" with them (praying), even if I have no doctrinal problem with it. Of course, there are undoubtedly many christians out there who have received specifically anti-Catholic teaching incorporated into the basic tenets of their faith. For them the reaction isn't slight discomfort and puzzlement (as it was for me), but disgust that people who call themselves christian can be so reluctant to approach Jesus directly and instead be drawn away from the truth into worshipping creatures rather than the creator. I have unfortunately known too many people with this gross misunderstanding.
That's why I believe the "Catholic/Protestant dictionary" thread is really onto something. SOOO much of the gap between ordinary protestants (not the theologians) and Catholics comes down to not understanding each other's language, which brings us back to Rich's comment that the things that are important for lay people to know should be written in a way that they are most likely to understand.
For cradle Catholics this may seem like a small issue, because you can trust the SOURCE of the communication, even if you don't understand it sufficiently. That isn't the case with protestants, who have the INDIVIDUAL burden of weighing ideas, doctrines, etc. to determine their validity and thereby decide which ones to accept and live by.
This is why the work of Dave Armstrong, Scott Hahn, and the many others whom God has raised up out of the protestant faith into the Catholic Church, and then called to speak to protestants, is SO IMPORTANT! They can speak the "protestant language". I'm thinking that it's not so important (at least for protestant/catholic dialogue) that the Catholic Church makes sure all its formal writings are written so ordinary people can understand them.
What's more important, I believe, is that God continues to increase the "ministry of translation". It's like having your best friend be from another country so when you go to his house his whole family is speaking a language you don't understand. You wouldn't necessarily expect them to all switch to speaking English (since they don't know your language) but you would expect that your best friend can translate for you.
-Marcee
____________________
Godliness with contentment is great gain. (1 Tim. 6:6)
In returning and rest you shall be saved; in quietness and confidence shall be your strength. (Isa. 30:15)
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2037 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Mon May 26th, 2008 06:29 pm |
|
rbo4u2 wrote:Much of Catholic literature is archaic and very difficult to unpack and explain without a lot of work.
Quite true. We need to see an update of most of our literary tradition. That’s a huge undertaking, and it will probably take centuries to accomplish — which leads me to say that the project should probably be continuously ongoing from now on.
But who will start it, and what will be the guiding principle? I shudder to think of the possibility of returning to the “relevancy” approach of the 1960s and ’70s. That was a disaster. Updating has to remain within the tradition it seeks to update. And we as Christians digging into our tradition must respect the fact that it is tradition and not a plaything.
I don't believe using the excuse that "well that's the way it's written by the saints" is an excuse to not make language understandable.
This is the other side of the coin. Just as “Progressivism” has some prominent defects, so also “Traditionalism” misses the mark. The proverbial “Catholic balance” is in order here.
My pastor delivered a homily for the Feast of Corpus Christi that was an excellent example of how to use the Church’s tradition and literary heritage to best advantage. He pulled a number of themes from biblical, patristic and medieval sources and spoke of them in an integrated way with contemporary issues. The key, I think, is that word “integrated.” It all fit together and made sense, and I believe the congregation was well edified. I certainly was.
left coast mystic wrote:I agree that the issue is cultural in that it has to do with deeply held assumptions based on concepts that are absorbed from the beginning, whether your beginning is "from the cradle" or as an adult.… given the basic tenets of faith as presented to me when I became a believer, Mary simply didn't fit. It wasn't that I was exposed to any anti-Catholic teaching, but with all the emphasis on Jesus and the Holy Spirit, why did we need to converse with Mary (or anyone else who has left this earth)? We were simply taught "to go directly to the source".
So if I have a perspective that doesn't "need" Mary or the saints, it seems weird to me to give such emphasis to "conversing" with them (praying), even if I have no doctrinal problem with it.
A beautiful illustration of exactly what I was referring to. Perspective and priorities, not doctrine, is the real difference. Like many converts, I had no difficulty with Catholic doctrine; it was that “funny feeling” about Mary and the saints that threw me for a loop. It took me a couple of years after I became Catholic to “feel OK” and begin to use this part of our heritage. I’m sure Mark is going through this very stage, which is the reason why he brought up the subject.
David
|
|
|
Candlemass
Member
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | Hudson, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 474 |
| First Name: | Mark | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, AOG, Baptist, non - denominational, Anglican, RCC for life! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 26th, 2008 10:45 pm |
|
David W. Emery wrote: I’m sure Mark is going through this very stage, which is the reason why he brought up the subject.
David
Mark is going through all kinds of @#$@$! 
____________________
"For I the blind who once could see, the bell tolls for me!"
|
|
|
Kayla
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | Emmitsburg, Maryland USA |
| Posts: | 369 |
| First Name: | Kayla | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Atheist, kind-of Mormon, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 27th, 2008 04:21 am |
|
David W. Emery wrote
A beautiful illustration of exactly what I was referring to. Perspective and priorities, not doctrine, is the real difference. Like many converts, I had no difficulty with Catholic doctrine; it was that “funny feeling” about Mary and the saints that threw me for a loop. It took me a couple of years after I became Catholic to “feel OK” and begin to use this part of our heritage. I’m sure Mark is going through this very stage, which is the reason why he brought up the subject.
David
Even though I converted, essentially, from atheism and therefore had little protestantness to overcome, I struggled initially with Mary. And then after I accepted her, I didn't understand devotion to her. I finally just decided that "Mary just wasn't my thing" and that she could be there, but devotion to her wouldn't be something I was big into.
In the past year, however, I have found myself really growing in Marian devotion as I come to further understand how she truly does bring us to Christ.
So, I think you're right David. It takes a while. But it eventually happens.
____________________
I believe, Lord, help my unbelief.
Jesus, I trust in You!
There's not a lot of job security for us after death. I suppose that's one advantage of being a philosopher. - Peter Kreeft
http://kayla23mount.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
Current time is 05:08 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
