More Weird Liturgy? "Our Lady" Rite Author Inspired By Labyrinth Walk

The Christian Challenge ^ | 7/28/2006 | Lee Penn

[wmfights]

"Pardon my being blunt, but you don't know what the heck you are talking about. I happen to be born and raised a Catholic and the Scriptures are very revered among my family and my parish. I know many Catholics that know Scripture better than Protestants."
______________________________

GWB: do you see what I mean. When you start getting this "I'm so outraged" type of stuff it's time to move on nothing of interest will be discussed.

[FJ290]

It's the first step in evangelizing. In my church 25% of our members are former RC's and it can be hard for them because of what they've been taught. IOW, if you leave the church you will lose your grace.

Actually, it's more about falling into heresy with me. I'll never become a Protestant because I am in vast disagreement with your various doctrines and believing them would put my soul at stake.

As to the 25 percent of ex-Catholics that attend your church, what does that constitute? Three or four members? You sound like you belong to an Independent Baptist church and they can have as little as 40 members sometimes.

[FJ290]

GWB: do you see what I mean. When you start getting this "I'm so outraged" type of stuff it's time to move on nothing of interest will be discussed.

Oh.. I see. Now it's time to move on when someone challenges your side of the story. The truth hurts I guess.

[blue-duncan]

"I think the worship of the female goes back to the Egyptians"

No, it started long before that: Gen. 2:23, " And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."

The obscure ancient Hebrew translation for, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh:" is actually, "WOW, will you look at that!". It went steadily downhill after that.

[gbcdoj]

In all those hundreds of years, never, not once, ever, has any Catholic used the word, "worship" to describe his relationship with the Blessed Mother of God, who is Mary

Not quite:

Sophia Institute Press: About Saint Worship and Worship of Mary - Why Devotion to the Saints Makes Sense

Protestants call it idolatry and modernists see it as quaint superstition, but in these lucid pages written over a century ago, Catholic author Orestes Brownson demonstrates that veneration of Mary and the saints is not merely permissible; it’s essential for every Christian who yearns to worship God in spirit and in truth. Worship comes from the Anglo-Saxon word weorthscipe, which means "worthy of honor." And Mary and the saints are worthy of honor more than all other created beings. As Christians praise God in the majesty of the heavens and of the earth, so they praise Him by venerating Him in His saints, who are also the work of His hands and whose good deeds are possible only by His grace. Such praise is not idolatrous because idolatry is the act of rendering to created things the worship that is due to God alone. Catholics do pray to Mary and to the saints, by they don’t invoke them as God; they call on them as humans — humans whose nearness to God in Heaven enables them to assist us here on earth. Catholics simply as of Mary and the saints what they ask of each other while they live in the flesh: prayers. Brownson explains that veneration of Mary and the saints arises from two central mysteries of our Faith — the creation and the Incarnation. And he shows that saint worship is not just a pious devotion that Christians can take or leave as they choose. Rather, it must be part of the faith of every Christian, for it serves as a critical safeguard against atheism, pantheism, and idolatry. Saint Worship and the Worship of Mary challenges every Christian — Catholic and Protestant alike — to take a fresh look at veneration of Mary and the saints, and to discover in these wise and worthy devotions sure means to keep alive in their souls the great mysteries of our Christian Faith.

---

I think it is more illuminating to observe that we don't offer sacrifice to the Virgin or the other Saints, as we do to God in the Eucharist. Sacrifice is the supreme expression of worship and is fit for God alone.

[FJ290]

The obscure ancient Hebrew translation for, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh:" is actually, "WOW, will you look at that!". It went steadily downhill after that.

ROFLOL! Well, you have to admit, if you're a man, God sure did make them beautiful to behold.

[blue-duncan]

"God sure did make them beautiful to behold."

Behold, nothing! This was not just eye candy. This was dangerous stuff! He knew what He was doing. Look at His first command to man.

[GCC Catholic]

The Orestes Brownson Society has this book available online:

Saint Worship

I haven't read any of it yet, so I can't give any hint at what Brownson has to say.

[irishtenor]

And they have been a pain in our side ever since. :>)

[conservatative strategery]

Awesmome post!! Keep up the good work.

[wmfights]

Thank you.

God Bless

[starfish923]

Levada didn't seem to accomplish a lot, either. Do you think the new Archbishop is going to improve things? (When I am in SF, I often go to Our Lady of Fatima, the Byzantine rite Catholic church on Lake Street, just to avoid the flakiness.)

Archbishop Levada was a towering rock of strength, a true soldier in the battle against evil.

I guess you didn't hear of the ENORMOUS broo-haha over same-sex partners, the Board of Supervisor Presdient Tom Ammiano, Catholic funds and Levada.

Briefly, the Church does 95% of ALL charity work in San Francisco, including homosexual charity work. It gets 10% of its operating funds from The City. Thus Ammiano believed that HE could tell the Catholic Church how it should operate. Harhar. That pimp hadn't a clue that the Church dealt with the Borgias. How smart did he think HE was.

Anyway, he tried to force the Church to offer same-sex benefits (medical, retirement, dental, etc.) to its employees or ELSE he would cut off the 10% funding to the Church.

1. The Church didn't/doesn't "NEED" no stinkin' 10% because it would do the charity work with or without the extra funding. It did before, since the 1870's.

2. There happen to be NO homosexual employees working for the Chuch at the time, so the whole thing was unnecessary. But it was merely to humiliate the Church and for it to change its very doctrine against homosexuality.

3. The Salvation Army capitulated and Ammiano waited in glee for Levada to give in. Levada DIDN'T.

4. Levada's answer to that threat was to actually pay out MORE money to the Church employees.
***What he did was offer ALL Church employees benefits +1." That meant that all employees could add ONE person to the benefit gravey train. That meant that, true, same-sex partners could be added but so could any family member. THAT is what actually happened. Employees added parents, siblings, elderly family, etc. No same-sex partners were added.

Ammiano was ENRAGED and screamed and raged at Levada for weeks. It was most entertaining. The newspaper editorials DID point out how the Archbishop spiked Ammiano's guns and out-politicked him. Rome was watching, too. You know, Levada now has His Holiness' old job. Our Holy Father saw in Levada the similar qualities of towering intellect and backbone of tempered steel. That is why he is now Cardinal Levada. We are all very proud of him here.

Levada has since, as cardinal, made the SAME ole statements that he made as Archbishop. Two examples:
1. When San Francisco's Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a resolution last week condemning the city's former archbishop, now Cardinal William Levada, for a church policy barring adoptions by same-sex couples, the action drew widespread media attention.
2. Cardinal-designate William J. Levada said a priest who publicly announces he is homosexual makes it difficult for people to see the priest as representing Christ, the bridegroom of his bride, the church.

Our new Archbishop is cut from the same cloth as Levada, very conservative.

[starfish923]

I think you will find justification, free will versus predestination are pretty big points of disagreement.
I think you don't see as many threads about those subjects because Bible study is not emphasized in the RC Church and most RC's are not as well versed as they should be about what their church thinks is truth.

I serioulsy doubt that many folks argue about the points of free will versus predestination anymore. It's rather esoteric to most folks. Perhaps your world is more erudite than most.

You made my argument yourself. Most Catholics DON'T emphasize Bible study. So, it would be hard to have arguments with the predestination folks when Catholics simply don't really care about the argument any more.
Perhaps there are arguments between Protestants but, I don't know about that too much, as I don't care either.

Also, that most Catholics don't even engage in the free will versus predestination argument shows that THEY, at least, know Church doctrine about that one subject. I knew about it LONG ago and I have never heard it discussed in sermon. Why discuss such an antiquated, moot point?

As for Catholics being less well-versed, lol, that's a rather snide thing to say. You couched it but it's simply telling me that, in your opinion, we are ignorant about Church doctrine. I wonder how you would be able to generalize about all 1 billion Catholics.
If Catholics go to Mass and listen to the sermons, they DO hear about doctrine. I wonder why you think they don't. Perhaps it's just your own peculiar bias. It's very odd and saddening to hear such stereotyping.

[livius]

That's very heartening news. I visit SF irregularly (I have family there, but none of them goes to mass anymore, unfortunately) so I don't follow it very closely. Some statements I have heard attributed to Levada have been a little ambiguous, but they were probably out of context and cherry-picked by the media to sound as close to the media's agenda as possible.

Thank you for the detailed explanation of his actions in the "partner benefits" case - it was the best I have read.

[wmfights]

"As for Catholics being less well-versed, lol, that's a rather snide thing to say."
_________________________________

I apologize if you took offense, none was intended.

[Terabitten]

it's a fact that Mary assisted with the redemptive act, although it's also a fact that she in no way had the power to make it more perfect;

I'm sorry, Dangus, my friend, but you can't have it both ways.

You say she assisted in the redemptive act, but had no power to make it more perfect. If she had no power to make it more perfect, then she didn't assist in the redemptive act, she merely attended. To "assist" means to help. Did Mary help Jesus in the redemptive act or not?

Asked from the other direction: Would the redemptive act have lost any of its perfection without Mary's "assistance?" If your answer is no, then Mary didn't assist, and thus should be assigned no greater reverence than anyone else who was there. If your answer is yes, that Jesus needed his mommy to help, then He isn't much of a Savior, is He?

[dangus]

Well, I wouldn't have worded my post the way I did had I seen this book, but this is hardly a spontaneous adaptation of Catholics using the term, "worship": the book is directly addressed to Protestants attacking what they call worship, and is precisely what I referred to immediately to George W. Bush's assertion his neighbor said she "worshipped" Mary: It is accepting a Protestant label for a practice which Catholics do not call worship, and plainly explains that Catholics do NOT do that which Protestants mean when they use the word "worship."

The author is using the tactic of asserting that "worship" did not mean idolatry. From the outside, it seems a foolish tactic, since plainly people use now the word worship to denote what is idolatry, and the Catholic Church had never used that word, but perhaps I shouldn't judge a book by its cover.

[dangus]

>> You say she assisted in the redemptive act, but had no power to make it more perfect. If she had no power to make it more perfect, then she didn't assist in the redemptive act, she merely attended. To "assist" means to help. Did Mary help Jesus in the redemptive act or not? <<

Didn't you ever help your Mom make cookies when you were a kid? DId you actually think you were enabling her to do something she couldn't have done without her help? Of course not! Your Mom had you help her because it was good for YOU, not good for HER. Accordingly, Christ allows us to help him, so that we come to know of his love for us better, and also come to know the nature of what he has done for us. We do need to respond to the call to help the mission of Christ, and Mary, as the first person to know Christ, is held up as an example of saying "yes" to that call.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Would the redemptive act have lost any of its perfection without Mary's "assistance?" If your answer is no, then Mary didn't assist, and thus should be assigned no greater reverence than anyone else who was there.

Amen. There's not one shred of evidence that Mary "assisted with the redemptive act," while the assertion itself borders on blasphemy, no matter how well-intentioned.

"Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." -- Matthew 4:10

"These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do." -- John 17:1-4

"Mission Accomplished" by Christ alone.

I REALLY like your tag. 8~)

[Terabitten]

Didn't you ever help your Mom make cookies when you were a kid?

Sadly, no, my mother was not present for large chunks of my childhood.

Your analogy actually argues the Protestant point. What you're saying is that Mary's "help" in the redemptive act wasn't really help at all. She didn't assist, she merely attended.

Besides, at that point, how could Jesus "letting her help" have possibly benefitted Mary? Was she not already in a state of grace by that time, according to Catholic doctrine?