Quote:
Originally Posted by ptownrob
Steve- can't really disagree with you, since trying to affix motivation of others is pretty relative. That, of course gives support to a more liberal overall view of relativism v. absolutism, but does not necessarily apply to the specifics of a situation.
My education is a cross between history/pol. sci as an undergrad & theology as a Masters. You won't find me getting passionate about string theory, engineering or statistics- but this area always energizes me. Some "live" for softball or line dancing- I believe that this is much more important than that!
I've always found the very strong differences between the John Adams' & Thomas Jeffersons' style to be very indicative of the two general "sides" that still divide our nation politically/philosophically today. I think Jefferson would probably have been pro-choice and quite a liberal, John Adams would have made a great conservative Republican.
We are blessed as a nation to have George Washington as our "First"- he blended the best of both, and showed tolerance for the other side.
MaryAnn- I meant no offense. I have said my share of decades and Novenas, and was profoundly moved by visits to Lourdes & Fatima. My point was only that the IMAGE of Mary as a white, fair haired blond wearing a blue robe with gold trim just doesn't square with who the historical Mary MUST have been, and there is a whole movement in church history that says the only way to "reach" Jesus is through Mary.
The use of Mary as sole Intercessor has no Biblical foundation. In fact, I'd say that the "reason" the curtain tore in the temple at Jesus' death was to illustrate that humanity no longer "needed" any intercessors (priests of the temple) to be in direct contact with God through Jesus Himself. Just be ready for the blinding light of the Transfiguration or Damascus if you're going to try that route!
There is Biblical evidence of Mary's unyielding loyalty to her son, and of her virgin birth, but the use of Marian adoration evolved through tradition and practice. The Roman Church of the Founders' time would not have recognized the difference between Biblical and Traditional practices.
|
I would disagree on the Roman Catholic Church comment regarding biblical/traditional practices. There are very few "constants" in this world, but the Roman Catholic Church rates as one. The Church moves at the equivalent pace of a glacier, and for good reason. There is sufficient confusion surrounding us, and the Church reminds us that species homo sapiens is not as smart as s/he thinks, especially when behavioral matters are involved. In a sea of radicalism and chaos, a safe harbor and an anchor are indeed welcome.