talk with an atheist-anti-catholic

Hi Dan

Look, I am fairly militant when it comes to religion now, and if you read through many old posts will find a number that are openly insulting. I am happy to have a rational debate via email with you - in fact it quite appeals in one way - and keep it moderate. I know that on some things I will never change on; and the same will be true of you. On these, we agree to disagree, and move on. Abortion is one that I wouldn't expect us to have much common ground on.

To start with Mary is to admit a weak point on my part. I know the church reveres her as Christs mother. My gripe is that the extent to which she is revered. And, if appropriate, why not Christs father? Things such as the rosary are more dogmatic so they do not affect a viewpoint - you either like or hate dogma - I personally hate it, but admit millions love it and by me that's fine, it is their choice. However, if I was a church-going person, I would not agree with th emphasis placed on her.

On Mary of Magdalane:

Now, after Nicacea and Constantinople, the Catholic church had a major hand in writing and selecting what went into the bible. It was also intended that the common person could not interpret it (like a trade union for preists almost). Mary (of Magdalene) got a raw deal at this time. Mary was NOT a prostitute; anything but. She came from a fairly wealthy family - or certainly one that was not destitute. She was Christs companion to the point it irked other disciples. Sorry, despite having read th bible, doing bible studies and studying comparitive religion (when an atheist actually) I cannot quote chapter and verses.

Sorry, I have drifted off topic. I am happy for you to put me right on misunderstandings - on my part about Mary. I have said I disagree with th emphasis placed on her - that it is a dogmatic issue to me - and I personally don't care for it. Please feel free to enlighten on this area.

Cheers
Brett

my reply

I will do the same, we can agree to disagree. I am assuming you know about her blood line in the bible. The OT speaks of the Messiah coming from the house of David. That blood line comes from Mary, not Joseph. By the way Joseph is highly honored too. The Fathers of the Church taught that Mary received a number of distinctive blessings in order to make her a more fitting mother for Christ and the prototypical Christian (follower of Christ). These blessings included her role as the New Eve (corresponding to Christ’s role as the New Adam), her Immaculate Conception, her spiritual motherhood of all Christians, and her Assumption into heaven. These gifts were given to her by God’s grace. She did not earn them, but she possessed them nonetheless. Mary freely and actively cooperated in a unique way with God’s plan of salvation (Luke 1:38; Gal. 4:4). Like any mother, she was never separated from the suffering of her Son (Luke 2:35), and Scripture promises that those who share in the sufferings of Christ will share in his glory (Rom. 8:17). Since she suffered a unique interior martyrdom, it is appropriate that Jesus would honor her with a unique glory. All Christians believe that one day we will all be raised in a glorious form and then caught up and rendered immaculate to be with Jesus forever (1 Thess. 4:17; Rev. 21:27). As the first person to say "yes" to the good news of Jesus (Luke 1:38), Mary is in a sense the prototypical Christian, and received early the blessings we will all one day be given.
I hope this helps you in our view of Mary and why she is held in such honor.

Now for the rosary. Again I am assuming you mean the "Hail Mary". The next prayer in the rosary, and the prayer which is really at the center of the devotion, is the Hail Mary. Since the Hail Mary is a prayer to Mary, many Protestants assume it’s unbiblical. Quite the contrary, actually. Let’s look at it. The prayer begins, "Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee." This is nothing other than the greeting the angel Gabriel gave Mary in Luke 1:28 (Confraternity Version). The next part reads this way: "Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus." This was exactly what Mary’s cousin Elizabeth said to her in Luke 1:42. The only thing that has been added to these two verses are the names "Jesus" and "Mary," to make clear who is being referred to. So the first part of the Hail Mary is entirely biblical. The second part of the Hail Mary is not taken straight from Scripture, but it is entirely biblical in the thoughts it expresses. It reads: "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen." Let’s look at the first words. Some Protestants do object to saying "Holy Mary" because they claim Mary was a sinner like the rest of us. But Mary was a Christian (the first Christian, actually, the first to accept Jesus; cf. Luke 1:45), and the Bible describes Christians in general as holy. In fact, they are called saints, which means "holy ones" (Eph. 1:1, Phil. 1:1, Col. 1:2). Furthermore, as the mother of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, Mary was certainly a very holy woman. I'm sorry Brett, I could go on and on about Mary, but I will leave it at this for now. May God bless and comfort you in His love

his reply

Dan, thank you for your reply, and, no ned to add to it.

I have read it twice slowly, absorbing what you say, and it is clear in my mind that you do not need to add to it for my benefit. In one of my books on religion (yes, we atheists read about religion too) I have seen both a description and more familiar pictorial layout of Marys bloodline. That is a matter which to me is simply a scholastic collection of records, which prove (presumably to most poeple) that she is a descendant of house David. I was not aware that Mary "freely and actively" co-operated with Gods plan.

I would have wagered at 8am today that I would noyt have my nose in a bible before lunch - yet I did. Thankfully you quoted Luke and I recalled the piece, without actually remembering why I do. Everything in your first two paragraphs, taken as a whole, essentially prove your point to me. Part of it I simply did not know, and other parts I knew - remembered or not..

Whil I agree with your statement about all Christians, of whatever flavour, believing in being raised from the dead - and a final judgement day, etc, you need to remember that someone such as myself does not believe this. I also have an issue with Christianity as a whole here - what about all the people who have (and do) exist in such a way they cannot learn Christian techings and logically, not partake of this final glory? I have chosen my path with knowledge, but what about those who do/did not have my choice? This is off subject for now, but something I would be interested in hearing an opinion on later.

At a personal level I feel it wrong to discuss th Rosary - in rather th same way as reading someone elses diary. It is a private thing and should remain that way. Nevertheless I know part of it and you illuminated more. I personally held no opinion to the effect that it is unbiblical. I have a number of boks on my bookshelf dealing in religion, yet only two bibles; that does not make the other books unbiblical!

Again, your reference to Luke confirmed what you claimed and I personally have no issue with accepting it - with an understanding I did not previously hold. I was probably wrong to pick on this topic as one that deeply bothers me. Thank you for that reply; I have read many (not all) verses quoted and the surrounding text and would conclude - if say in a court of law - that what you said was correct and in text (not that I wish to imply you personally would do otherwise). Your comment of Mary being a very holy woman now stands on feet it didn't have when I awoke this morning.. Thank you for th effort and time in explaining that all. It will not change my overall view, but certainly enlightened me in a way that I would now never use it in a debate against someone as, clearly, it would be I who was wrong.

Regards
Brett

my reply

Brett,
Good morning from Texas. I am honored at your honestly. Thank you for you time. I am open to continuing this conversation on the topic of your choice. Again, thank you for being honest. I have to go to work now, but look forward to your next question. I hope you have a great day.

Peace

his reply

Good morning Dan,

I didn't realise you were from the great State. I lived in San Antonio on and off for about a year back in 1985/86 whil also working in Europe. I have a deep love of Texas and Texans. Who knows, if it wasn't for corporate asset strippers I might still be there.

I never have a problem admitting I either don't know or that I may be wrong. Also, if I throw stones (metaphorically), I expect some to be thrown back, so don't get at all upset by being called some rather terrible things on occasions.

OK, a concept I am unhappy with is the Pope; his declaration that he is Gods one representative on earth (made not so many years ago), a number of papal edicts - such as condoms not helping in the African fight against AIDS, Papal infallibility??, that Catholicism is the one true religion, and the list goes on. You are obviously highly literate and intelligent - do you personally believe every one of the Papal Bulls and statements in your heart of hearts? Let us include the attitude that women cannot join the preisthood here, and the issue of th participation of th Inquisition, seeing it was initiated by a Pope (yes, I am aware th Spanish inquisition was driven by Ferdinand).

I recall seeing a Vatican documentary about 10 years ago, where a fairly senior cleric - perhaps a cardinal - sat looking solemnly into the camera for 40 minutes 'proving' only about 10 people actually died and the rest were just bad accounting on the part of millions of villagers. This of course flies in th face of th recent release of Vatican records of th Inquisition for restricted but public scrutiny (even as a detracter from th church, this REALLY impressed me - full marks for that!!).

I suspect there may be just the odd issue above or two you might quietly be uncomfortable with. If not, we'll bypass those for the ones you do.

Cheers,
Brett

my reply

Hello Brett,
Good evening from San Antonio!! It is a small world.
Now, where to start? You have given me about seven points. (The Vicar of Christ, condoms/AIDS, Papal infallibility, one true religion, Papal Bulls, women and the preisthood, Inquisition) I could give you a full page on each point. I will try to summarize each point down to a couple of paragraphs.

Point #1. The Vicar of Christ.
The New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5–6, Rev. 21:14). One metaphor that has been disputed is Jesus Christ’s calling the apostle Peter "rock": "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). Some have tried to argue that Jesus did not mean that his Church would be built on Peter but on something else. Some argue that in this passage there is a minor difference between the Greek term for Peter (Petros) and the term for rock (petra), yet they ignore the obvious explanation: petra, a feminine noun, has simply been modified to have a masculine ending, since one would not refer to a man (Peter) as feminine. The change in the gender is purely for stylistic reasons. These critics also neglect the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and, as (John 1:42) tells us, in everyday life he actually referred to Peter as Kepha or Cephas (depending on how it is transliterated). It is that term which is then translated into Greek as petros. Thus, what Jesus actually said to Peter in Aramaic was: "You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church." The Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the apostles in time, culture, and theological background, clearly understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter. http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html#the_church-II

Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way (Matthew 16:15-19) is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in (Isaiah 22:22), kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatim from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Isaiah. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy. A title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honor and of jurisdiction, over the Church. It is founded on the words of the Divine Sheppard to Peter: "Feed my lambs. . . . Feed my sheep" (John 21:16), by which He constituted the Prince of the Apostles guardian of His entire flock in His own place, thus making him His Vicar and fulfilling the promise made in (Matthew 16:18-19). Peter's name occurs 195 times in the New Testament, more than all the rest put together. This link will give you even more biblical evidence of Peter's primacy. http://scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

Christ conferred upon his apostles the original task of shepherding the earthly Church in his absence. As the Church grew, the apostles themselves appointed different kinds of ministers to assist them. Among the apostles there were two groups. The first consisted of the Twelve, who witnessed the whole of Christ's earthly ministry from his baptism to his Ascension (Acts 1:21-26). The second group of apostles, including Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:14), was not bound by this condition. Thus Paul had seen and been commissioned as an apostle by the risen Christ (1 Cor. 9:1, Gal. 1:1), though he had not been a disciple of Jesus during his earthly ministry (Acts 9, 1 Cor. 15:8). Christ could have continued to appear to individuals and appoint them as apostles throughout the Church age. However, he chose not to do so, and so the apostles passed from the scene. The fact that this group has not continued is a Christian teaching, though not found in the New Testament, that is universally honored among Christians, including Protestants (except for certain radical Pentecostals). Thus it can be used as a counterexample with those advocating sola scriptura. As the apostles died, the task of shepherding the Church fell by default upon the highest-ranking ministers appointed by them. This group is known today as the bishops, who are the successors of the apostles as the highest shepherds of the earthly Church. Due to bishops' role as the successors of the apostles, possession of a valid episcopacy is necessary for a church to claim apostolic succession. Apostolic succession thus involves in the bishops serving as successors to the apostles, not serving as apostles. The bishops are not simply a continuation of the office of apostle; they received the governance of the Church when that office ceased.
Brett, I am sorry for making this so long but I feel you deserve to see a good explanation of each point. Point two tomorrow, untill then. Peace be with you.
Dan