Muslims Enter Catholic Church, See A Statue Of The Virgin Mary, Call It An Idol And Destroy It

Shoebat ^ | 7/19/2014 | Theodore Shoebat

[markomalley]

Muslims in Iraq entered a Catholic church in Iraq, and when they saw a statue of the Virgin Mary they destroyed it because they deemed it an idol. As we read from one report:

The militants also removed the cross from St. Ephrem’s Cathedral, the seat of the Syriac Orthodox archdiocese in Mosul, and put up the black ISIS flag in its place. They also destroyed a statue of the Virgin Mary, according to Ghazwan Ilyas, the head of the Chaldean Culture Society in Mosul, who spoke by telephone on Thursday from Mosul but seemed to have left on Friday.

The Muslims also tore out the crosses and replaced them with the antichrist black flags of Islam. Muslims are iconoclasts, that is, they hate any sort of Christian images, or any image pertaining to Christianity. They see any cross or statue as an idol. This story refutes the idea that Islam came from Catholicism, since it hates everything about the Catholic Church.

I wrote an article completely refuting this idea that the Catholic Church invented Islam and I will repost it here…

The Catholic Church did not invent Islam. I have heard this countless times, and have received innumerable messages from people, that Islam was founded by the Catholic Church. I don’t have the time to respond to every individual who tells me this assertion, so I have decided to write this essay to deal with it.

The idea that Islam was conceived by the Catholic Church is traced back to a conspiracy theorist named Alberto Rivera, a con-artist who claimed to be a Jesuit (I know how many messages I will receive about how I slandered “brother Alberto”).

Alberto Rivera

Alberto said that the “the Pope” commissioned Muhammad to do three missions:

1. Eliminate the Jews and Christians (true believers, which they called infidels).

2. Protect the Augustinian Monks and Roman Catholics.

3. Conquer Jerusalem for “His Holiness” in the Vatican.

These commands, for one thing, cannot be found in any primary account whatsoever. What is a primary account? We need to know this if we are going to understand the nature of our inquiry. When trying to reach an historical conclusion, or make historical observations, one must focus first on one type of evidence: first hand accounts, or primary sources.

An old letter, an example of primary source

A primary source is a document written in, or around the time, of the particular historical event in question, being based on eye-witness accounts and first hand materials. To use an example that we are all familiar with, I will ask a simple question: The Exodus of the Hebrew slaves from Egypt, how do we know that it happened? Because Moses, who was the leader of Israel’s liberation, wrote about it. We would never know about the Exodus, if Moses never wrote a book about it. Exodus, then, is a primary source account. Would you, then, rather read the Book of Exodus, or a modern book on the Exodus? The only way to fully comprehend the Exodus, is to read Exodus.

So then, how would we learn about the invention of Islam? We would need to read ancient documents, both Islamic and non-Islamic. We would have to read the primary source accounts. And when reading on the origins of Islam, based on the primary source accounts, we have absolutely zero substantiation for any of Rivera’s claims.

Now, Rivera says that he learned of Islam’s Catholic inventors from one Cardinal Bea. But when we research the statement that Rivera attributes to Bea, all we find are books and articles, written by anti-Catholic polemics, and not one statement from anything ever written by Bea. Therefore, to simply conclude Rivera’s quoting of Bea as factual, is both empty of scholarship and absent of any cognitive reasoning expected of the historian.

When my father exposes Obama’s family, or reveals an unknown plan of the jihadists, he does not simply claim that it is true, nor does he say that he met so and so, and so and so said such and such, and thats it. He goes to the primary sources, searching and finding documents in Arab, Israeli, American, and other records. He spends countless hours sifting through innumerable sources, trying to find reliable information on the particular subject he is writing on.

Truth is found through both will and reasoning, not sensation or exciting novelties. That the Catholic Church invented Islam, is just that, a sensational novelty. And in regards to the rest of the rubbish Alberto said in regards to Islam’s creation, there is not one piece of primary evidence (I dare anyone to show me just one).

If we are going to analyze the origins of Islam, what must be first comprehended is the innate focal point of Islamic theology: Islam is a religion of a book; it is primarily revolved around the Koran, and secondarily fixated on what interpretation Muslim authorities deduce on the Koran.

/p>

Without the Koran, there is no Islam. Therefore, in order to understand the origins of Islamic theology, one must read the Koran. And when we do, what we find is not evidence of a Catholic creation, but actually statements that are openly anti-Catholic.

One of the most quoted Koranic verses by exposers of Islam, is Surah 9:29, which states:

Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture and believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

But when one reads the verse in conjunction with the subsequent verses, one finds that the Christians it is commanding to war with, are in fact Catholics. Here is the full verse:

Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture and believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low. And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they! They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One God. There is no god save Him. Be He glorified from all that they ascribe as partner (unto Him)! (Surah 9:29-31)

The existence of the word monks, in the verse, signifies that it is referring to Catholics, both Eastern and Western. How do we know this? Let us look to the interpretation of this verse by Abu Bakr, the successor to Muhammad, and one who was amongst the most elite of Muhammad’s companions. Before invading Syria, he declared:

You will meet people who have set themselves apart in hermitages; leave them to accomplish the purpose for which they have done this. …You will meet people who have shaved the crowns of their heads, leaving a band of hair around it. Strike them with the sword.

Those who have their hair shaven to the shape of a crown, can only be referring to Catholic monks; for the tradition behind this hairstyle, symbolizing the crown of glory given to the martyrs, and the crown of thorns placed on Christ’s head, is purely one of Catholic origin.

The first people that Abu Bakr mentions, the ones who “set themselves apart in hermitages”, were the heretical Christians, or the Arians, Nestorians, and other subscribers to false doctrines.

So, when Rivera claims that “the Pope” commissioned Muhammad to kill the Jews and the “true Christians,” the only Christians that the Koran initially commanded to kill are the Catholics. Why would the Catholics create a system that is innately adverse toward the Catholic Church? It makes no sense, and anyone who upholds such an ahistorical statement, is not committed to historical truth and reasoning, but a mere opinion that is both groundless and ignominious.

Those who believe this slanderous lie will argue that the Muslims broke off from Rome and began to fight Catholics; and to those who say this, I will ask you to bring me one primary source account that proves this claim.

Furthermore, the idea that Islam was invented by the Catholic Church is void of any evidence in the writings of the Church Fathers. In order to understand Islam’s history, we read the Koran and the Hadith; in order to understand Catholic history, we read the Church Fathers. We find absolutely nothing close to what Rivera claims in any book written by any of the Church Fathers or ancient Catholic theologians who lived closest to the early days of Islam.

In fact, in looking to the earliest Christian opinion on Islam, what we find are Catholics writing against Muhammad as a damnable heretic and enemy to Rome. One of the best examples of this are the writings of Theodore Abu Qurrah, the bishop of Harran who lived in the 9th century, when Islam was still quite a young cult.

Theodore affirmed the primacy of the Roman Church, and viewed Islam as an enemy toward the Church. On the primacy of the Church of Rome, Theodore writes:

Do you not see that St. Peter is the foundation of the church, selected to shepherd it, that those who believe in his faith will never lose their faith, and that he was ordered to have compassion on his brethren and to strengthen them? As for Christ’s words, “I prayed for you, that you not lose your faith; but you, have compassion on your brethren, at that time, and strengthen them,” [Luke 22:32-33] we do not think that he meant St. Peter himself [and the apostles themselves]. Rather, he meant nothing other than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, that is, Rome, [and the holders of the seats of the apostles]. (1)

Theodore goes on to write how when the heresy of Arianism (the denial of Christ’s divinity) arose, the Church commenced the Council of Nicaea to combat it; when Nestorianism (the denial that God became flesh in Mary’s womb) arose, the Church of Rome commanded the Council of Ephesus. (2) Islam intrinsically coincides with both of these heresies, in that it rejects Christ’s divinity, and the Incarnation of God in Mary’s womb.

Since the Church of Rome was the one that first commenced the two councils that went against these two false doctrines and their followers, it is therefore impossible that the Catholic Church would then turn around and create a heresy that upholds them and desires to kill the very people (Catholics) who were adverse to these heresies.

Council of Ephesus

John the Deacon, an ancient Catholic theologian who had direct access to the material of Theodore Abu Qurrah, declares the primacy of St. Peter’s See, deems Muslims as enemies to the Church, and then describes how the bishop Theodore wrote against the heresies of Islam:

And because the Lord had promised Peter, the chief of the apostolic choir, that he would lay the church’s foundation on the unshaken rock of his confession, and because he had assured the church that she would overcome the gates of hell, so the opponents of God, up to the present, struggles against the church. …I am speaking of the most blessed and most philosophical bishop of Haran in Coele Syria, Theodore. In his writings, which were truly inspired by God, he worthily held up to public scorn the impious religion of the Agarenes [Muslims] and showed to all that it was worthy of complete derision. (3)

The Catholic Church preserved and protected the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and in so doing it condemned and fought against Islam more than any other institution in history (if you don’t believe me, read any detailed history book on the Crusades). The first Church leader to lead and organize a crusade against Islam was St. Pope Leo IV who, in the year 849, led a battle against Muslims who were trying to sack the Vatican.

Muslims and Catholics fighting

As soon as Arianism came about, the Church combated it; and when Islam arose, with its very Arian doctrine, the Church combated it. Catholicism’s war against Islam is a continuation of its war against Arianism. There is therefore no evidence or documentation to prove that the Catholic Church suddenly decided to invent an extension of the very doctrine it was bent on crushing and suppressing.

Council of Nicaea

Islam has its roots in Arian doctrines, not Catholicism; and yet many today wish to turn it round, and reverse this very historical fact. Constantine Porphyrogentinitus, the fourth emperor of the Byzantine Empire, wrote in the 10th century, in his Administrando Imperio, that

he [Muhammad] was believed because a certain Arain, who pretended to be a monk, testified falsely in his support for love of gain. (4)

John the Deacon also recounts an Arian origin to Islam:

The Saracens [Muslims] are intent and zealous to deny the divinity of the Word of God. On all sides, they array themselves against him, eager to show that he is neither God nor the Son of God. Indeed, it was only because their false prophet [Muhammad] was the disciple of an Arian that he gave them this godless and impious teaching. (5)

For the Catholic Church inventing Islam, we have no evidence. What we do have, however, are an abundance of ancient records of Catholics fighting Muslims, and Muslims striving to destroy Christendom and the Catholic Church, a goal which, to this day, they have not given up.

---

(1) Theodore Abu Qurrah, Discerning the True Church, B164, trans. John C. Lamoreaux*

(2) *Ibid, B165-B166*

(3) *Refutations of the Saracens by Theodore Abu Qurrah, the Bishop of Haran, as Reported by John the Deacon, GK86-88, trans. John C. Lamoreaux*

(4) *Constantine Porphyrogentinitus, De Administrando Imperio, 14, trans. R.J.H. Jenkins, brackets mine*

(5) *Refutations of the Saracens by Theodore Abu Qurrah, the Bishop of Haran, as Reported by John the Deacon, GKh118, trans. John C. Lamoreaux*

[Mrs. Don-o]

Worship of Mary would be idolatry. But Catholics do not worship Mary. We know she is a human being who has Jesus as her Savior, and is a handmaid of the Lord.

[narses]

[Mrs. Don-o]

The Prodigal Son calls his father, father. Does Jesus say he was wrong?

Do you object to calling George Washington the father of his country?

Do you object to the "father" line on a birth certificate?

Consider the words of our Lord from Luke 16:24: And he (the rich man) called out, “Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.”

Abraham is clearly a “religious leader.” And Jesus is not alone in referring to him as “father.” St. James refers to Abraham as “father” in James 2:21, while St. Paul refers to Abraham as “father” seven times in Romans 4:1-18. If you believe in the inspiration of Sacred Scripture, St. James and St. Paul cannot be contradicting Jesus in Matthew 23:9.

Your interpretation, I think, fails to take adequate notice of a big number of Scripture passages.

[Mrs. Don-o]

People have been known to display pictures of dear ones in public, put flowers in front of them, even kiss them. These are signs of honor and spiritual reverence Honoring our fathers and mothers (a part of which might be treating their pictures with special reverence)is commended by God. But such honor or veneration is not the same as adoration.

Adoration is for God alone. All Christians and Jews know that.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Actually we don't worship statues anymore. We worship felt banners.

;o)

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Please ray for me."

There ya go. I'm praying to you.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Ealgone, I think what's happening here is that you're not discerning different levels of honor.

If you were to see the Marines in their Dress Blues do a flag ceremony (raising the colors, presenting of the colors, etc.) you would agree that it is ritual which shows reverence.

But we 21st Century Americans are not living in a culture which has a wealth of ritual, and an elaborate code of forms of honor. This is a pity; in this we are much poorer than many other cultures. We tend to see two ends of the spectrum --- vulgar, cheap and banal on one end, and religious adoration on the other ---- and nothing in-between. No continuum, no gradations.

When I was a child, we were taught to get to our feet if an older person came into the room. Can you believe that? We said "Yes, sir" and "Yes ma'am" and did not call adults by heir first name. But no more.

But that's why anything that isn't common and banal tends to get misinterpreted as worship. Because we don't have anything near an adequate culture of legitimate, recognized "intermediate honors" for parents, grandparents, elders, teachers, judges and doctors, let alone angels and saints.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Define “idol”.

[ealgeone]

Worship of Mary would be idolatry. But Catholics do not worship Mary.

Prayer is part of worship; hence when Catholics pray to Mary they are worshiping her.

We know she is a human being who has Jesus as her Savior, and is a handmaid of the Lord.

Glad you acknowledge Mary is a sinner and in need of a Savior.

[ealgeone]

"Please ray for me." There ya go. I'm praying to you.

This makes no sense if you are trying to equate praying for someone with praying to someone.

[Mrs. Don-o]

" We know she is a human being who has Jesus as her Savior, and is a handmaid of the Lord.... Glad you acknowledge Mary is a sinner and in need of a Savior.

Now realize that this is basic Catholic doctrine!

The word "pray" in its original and most authentic sense, is only encountered in three places in America today:

In a court of law ("The appellant prays this honorable court...")

In Shakespeare and other Elizabethan-era authors ("I pray you, do not fall in love with me")

and in Catholic intercessory prayers.

But here's a Biblical example:

Luke 14:18 "And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it: I pray thee have me excused."

This is how we pray to Mary and the Saints: "Pray," as a request...

If I say "Please say a prayer for me," I'm praying to you!

But even if you wear a hat that makes you look "adorable" .... I don't adore you!

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

This makes no sense if you are trying to equate praying for someone with praying to someone.

This is an equivocal use of language, hence the chronic confusion.

The term "pray to" that Catholics use is an archaic English phrase, meaning "to ask." It dates from medieval times. When Catholics say that they "pray to St. Patrick," they mean, "asking St. Patrick (to pray for us)." We ask the saints in heaven to pray for us, just as we ask the saints on earth to pray for us, since we are all part of the one Body of Christ.

[ealgeone]

Ealgone, I think what's happening here is that you're not discerning different levels of honor.

Nope. I worship and pray only to God. I acknowledge Mary was the mother of Christ and she is blessed among women for this. I also acknowledge that Paul was the writer of the bulk of the NT. However, I do not worship or pray to Mary or Paul or any other Christian. Nor did Mary, Peter, Paul, etc. Do I respect what Paul, Peter, James and the other apostles did? Yes. Do I respect what Mary did? Yes. However, my respect for Mary is limited to what the Bible teaches about her. I do not accord her anything beyond what we have in the Bible.

If you were to see the Marines in their Dress Blues do a flag ceremony (raising the colors, presenting of the colors, etc.) you would agree that it is ritual which shows reverence.

With all due respect to the Marines and others in uniform and who are serving and have served (which btw, I have seen these ceremonies and they are awesome and very moving), I do not offer prayers to them. That is the difference.

But we 21st Century Americans are not living in a culture which has a wealth of ritual, and an elaborate code of forms of honor.

Disagree. Reference the paragraph regarding the Marines. We also have 21 gun salutes, state funerals, protocols when the president shows up, etc.

However, I will not kiss the ring of the pope. Regarding this business of kneeling and praying/worshiping Mary we would to well to follow the example of Peter when Cornelius fell down to worship him and Peter told him to get up for he was just a man.

We should also look to the example of John when he fell at the feet of an angel and he was told to get up. So here are two verses from the Bible addressing how we should respond to fellow Christians and angels.

This is a pity; in this we are much poorer than many other cultures. We tend to see two ends of the spectrum --- vulgar, cheap and banal on one end, and religious adoration on the other ---- and nothing in-between. No continuum, no gradations.

When I was a child, we were taught to get to our feet if an older person came into the room. Can you believe that? We said "Yes, sir" and "Yes ma'am" and did not call adults by heir first name. But no more.

I was raised the same way. I still do these things. However, I don't pray/worship people in these cases.

But that's why anything that isn't common and banal tends to get misinterpreted as worship. Because we don't have anything near an adequate culture of legitimate, recognized "intermediate honors" for parents, grandparents, elders, teachers, judges and doctors, let alone angels and saints.

Again, the main difference here is that we don't pray to elders, judges, teachers, etc. Respect them? Yes. But no prayers, no assigning mythical aspects like the RCC does with Mary such as the immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, and all the other non-Biblical teachings regarding Mary by the RCC.

You are aware that the RCC is considering elevating Mary to co-redemtrix?

In August 1996, a Mariological Congress was held in Czestochowa, Poland, where a commission was established in response to a request of the Holy See. The congress sought the opinion of scholars present there regarding the possibility of proposing a fifth Marian dogma on Mary as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate. The commission unanimously declared that it was not opportune, voting 23-0 against the proposed dogma.

By 1998 it was doubtful the Vatican was going to consider new Marian dogmas. The papal spokesman stated "This is not under study by the Holy Father nor by any Vatican congregation or commission". A leading Mariologist stated the petition was "theologically inadequate, historically a mistake, pastorally imprudent and ecumenically unacceptable". Pope John Paul II cautioned against "all false exaggeration", his teaching and devotion to Mary has strictly been "exalting Mary as the first among believers but concentrating all faith on the Triune God and giving primacy to Christ." When asked in an interview in 2000 whether the Church would go along with the desire to solemnly define Mary as Co-redemptrix, (the then) Cardinal Ratzinger responded that,

the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings...Everything comes from Him [Christ], as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything she is through Him. The word “Co-redemptrix” would obscure this origin. A correct intention being expressed in the wrong way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#Proposed_dogmatic_definition

[Mrs. Don-o]

Your entire argument depends on the assumption that pray = worship. But pray is not a synonym for worship. This is a false equivalence.

Think of what can be the content of a prayer, any prayer in your prayer book. It could be

• praise
• appreciation
• thanksgiving for gifts or generosity
• sorrow for wrongdoing
• request for a favor
• declaration of love and loyalty
• recognition of being in a subordinate position
• giving credit where credit is due
• awe for beauty and power
• plea for help
• promise of fidelity

All of these are indisputable part of prayer, but it does NOT mean that whenever we express praise, appreciation, thanksgiving, sorrow, request, love, loyalty, recognition, honor, promise, etc. we are adoring the person we are addressing. After all, we express all these things --- all of them --- to our fellow human beings on some occasions, and yet we are not making idols of them.

It's a question of due measure.

Honor your father and your mother. Honor the king. Give honor to whom honor due

That honor toward a fellow creature could be quite extravagant in Biblical times, and still not be idolatry. People are bowing down to people, places, and things (to King David, to the Ark of the Covenant, to Jerusalem) and blessed for doing it. Were they idol-worshippers? No. They were using forms of respect which are Biblical, and which are NOT idolatry.

If you don't see that, you don't understand a fundamental distinction which the Bible makes dozens, maybe even hundreds of times.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Here’s where the confusion comes in. What’s forbidden is bowing in adoration; not bowing as a sign of honor or respect.

Can I show that Biblically? Sure. It permeates Old Testament culture.

I looked up “kneel(ing)” and “bow(ing)” in the good old BibleGateway Keyword Search, and found so many references it would be exhausting to list them all.

Genesis 23:7 Then Abraham rose and bowed down before the people of that land

Genesis 33:3-7 Jacob bowed down to the ground seven times as he approached his brother Esau

maidservants and their children bow down to Esau

Leah and her children bow down to Jacob

Joseph and Rachel bow. Etc. etc!

Genesis 37 Joseph’s dreams: his brothers’ sheaves of corn -— and then the sun and moon and eleven stars —— bow down to him. Later his brothers actually do bow down to him with their faces to the ground

Genesis 48:11 Joseph bows to Jacob “with his face to the earth.”

1 Kings 1:15 Bathsheba bows low (face to the ground) and kneels before the aged king David

2 Kings 1:13 the captain kneels before the prophet Elijah, and “prays” —begs-— him to spare his life and the life of his 50 men

Moses bows down to father-in-law Jethroe;

Ruth bows down to Boaz;

David prostrates before Jonathan;

David prostrates to Saul;

Abigail prostrates to David;

Saul prostrates to Samuel;

Nathan prostrates to David;

Obadiah bows to the ground before Elijah;

the prophets in Jericho bow before Elisha;

the “whole assembly” bows low and prostrates before David;

David bows to the Temple;

David prostrates to Jerusalem;

God causes the king’s adversaries to bow prostrate on the ground and “lick the dust at his feet”;

the sons of the oppressors will bow to Zion.

OK, pretty obviously the patriarchs, prophets, and kings knew about the commandment not to bow down and worship anything or anybody but God. But here they are bowing, kneeling, and prostrating, and God is not offended. Why?

Because the commandment clearly forbids bowing and worshipping a creature as the Creator; it does not forbid kneeling or bowing (to king, prophet, father, husband or brother) as a form of honor.

The commandment does not prohibit kneeling or bowing to give honor. It prohibits adoration toward anyone but Almighty God.

Now here’s an interesting episode:

1 Kings 2:19
When Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, the king stood up to meet her, bowed down to her and sat down on his throne. He had a throne brought for the king’s mother, and she sat down at his right hand.

Here’s the King bowing to his mother. Does that mean she’s equal to God? No. It doesn’t even mean she’s equal to the King. It means he’s pleased to honor her because of her royal dignity, her relationship as Queen Mother.

As our mindset gets further and further from traditional custom and culture, it gets harder and harder to grasp what was once the universal language of physical gesture (the salute, the tip of the hat, the bow, the genuflection, the handclasp, the curtsey, the kiss) and put each expression in its proper perspective.

It’s something to ponder and appreciate. As I live, I appreciate it more and more.

I think we're unBiblical because we don't do ENOUGH bowing, prostrating, and kissig.

[Salvation]

** “Co-redemptrix” **

Americans are likely to think the co means co-opt or equal to Christ.

Actually it means “with”

Mary always defers all things to her son, the Redeemer.

[Salvation]

I meant to ping you too.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3182543/posts?page=76#76

[ealgeone]

Your entire argument depends on the assumption that pray = worship. But pray is not a synonym for worship. This is a false equivalence. Think of what can be the content of a prayer, any prayer in your prayer book. It could be •praise • appreciation •thanksgiving for gifts or generosity •sorrow for wrongdoing • request for a favor •declaration of love and loyalty •recognition of being in a subordinate position •giving credit where credit is due • awe for beauty and power • plea for help • promise of fidelity

All of these are indisputable part of prayer, but it does NOT mean that whenever we express praise, appreciation, thanksgiving, sorrow, request, love, loyalty, recognition, honor, promise, etc. we are adoring the person we are addressing. After all, we express all these things --- all of them --- to our fellow human beings on some occasions, and yet we are not making idols of them.

It's a question of due measure.

And the due measure we are to give to Mary is the call her blessed as noted in the Bible. Nothing more...nothing less.

Honor your father and your mother. Honor the king. Give honor to whom honor due

Again, we don't pray to our parents or the earthly king as roman catholics due to Mary.

That honor toward a fellow creature could be quite extravagant in Biblical times, and still not be idolatry. People are bowing down to people, places, and things (to King David, to the Ark of the Covenant, to Jerusalem) and blessed for doing it. Were they idol-worshippers? No. They were using forms of respect which are Biblical, and which are NOT idolatry.

I would recommend you read this article to put these things in the proper perspective.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=105&article=2646

Any way you want to cut it, Roman Catholics have made, continue to make and advocate the worship/pray to/of idols, icons, images, etc. in direct contradiction of the Word.

[Mrs. Don-o]

And by the way, the titles of Mary are all--- every one of them --- derivative from her relationship to her Son. If he is Christ the King, she is the Queen Mother. That's way the relationship language of the Bible works.

Everyone --- not just Mary --- needs to be a cooperator in Redemption, a cooperation which is totally subordinate to God, which is expressed very well by Paul:

Philippians 2:12-13
"Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed me, not only in my presence, but much more now in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure."

"Co-Redemptrix" (which is not a dogma of the Church) is a term which, if it came into use, could have two different, even opposite senses: a true orthodox one, and a false heretical one.

The Orthodox one (like any Marian title, like "Blessed" -- or like the title the Angel Gabriel gave her, "Kecharitomene" ---) would be a strictly subordinate and derivative meaning: Jesus is the unique and only Redeemer, being our incarnate Lord who died for us; Mary cooperated in His Incarnation; therefore she cooperated in the Redemption. His title means He is the Redeemer; hers means only that she played a role, she was a companion from beginning to end, she was a cooperator. ("Your own heart" said Simeon the Prophet, "A sword shall pierce.")

Quite the opposite would be a presumptuous assertion that she was or is Jesus' equal. She is not co-equal. Not Deity or Goddess or anything of the sort. Just a creature, a handmaid really, who depends of God as her Savior.

I think it's because of this likelihood of confusion between a true meaning and a false meaning --- that the Church has steered clear of attributing such a title.

[ealgeone]

Did any of these pray to these individuals like roman catholics pray to Mary and the "saints"?

Again, I'll go with the examples of Peter, you remember Peter, he's the "first pope", and John when people bowed to them or they bowed to people. In either case it was not permitted.

I love how catholics run to "sola scriptura" from time to time to attempt to "prove" their points.