DR. PUSEY ON THE WORSHIP OF MARY IN THE CHURCH OF ROME

According to promise, we have summarized the detailed account of the idolatrous worship of Mary by the Papists as exposed in full by Dr. Pusey in his new work. As his statements are not made at random, but are supported by quotations from Romish writers of recognised authority, they will be valuable to those who are met by the crafty denials of Romanists whenever they expose the genuine doctrines of Popish faith. Amid all the mischief which Pusey has done, it is well to note and acknowledge whatever service he may in this case render to truth. The headings of the paragraphs are ours; the quotations are given as they stand.

—"So, then, it is taught in authorized books, that 'it is morally impossible for those to be saved who neglect the devotion to the Blessed Virgin;' that 'it is the will of God that all graces should pass through her hands;' that 'no creature obtained any grace from God, save according to the dispensation of His holy Mother;' that Jesus has, in fact, said, 'no one shall be partaker of My Blood, unless through the intercession of My Mother;' that 'we can only hope to obtain perseverance through her;' that 'God granted all the pardons in the Old Testament absolutely for the reverence and love of this Blessed Virgin;' that 'our salvation is in her hand;' that 'it is impossible for any to be saved, who turns away from her, or is disregarded by her; or to be lost, who turns to her, or is regarded by her;' that 'whom the justice of God saves not, the infinite mercy of Mary saves by her intercession;' that God is 'subject to the command of Mary;' that 'God has resigned into her hands (if one might say so) His omnipotence in the sphere of grace;' that 'it is safer to seek salvation through her than directly from Jesus.'"

—"F. Faber, in his popular books, is always bringing in the devotion to the Blessed Virgin.. He believes that the shortcomings of English Roman Catholics are owing to the inadequacy of their devotion to her. After instancing people's failures in overcoming their faults, want of devotion, unsubmission to God's special Providence for them, feeling domestic troubles almost-incompatible with salvation, and that 'for all these things prayer appears to bring so little remedy,' he asks, 'What is the remedy that is wanted? what is the remedy indicated by God himself? If we may rely on the disclosures of the saints, it is an immense increase of devotion to our Blessed Lady, but remember, nothing short of an immense one. Here, in England, Mary is not half enough preached. Devotion to her is low and thin and poor. It is frightened out of its wits by the sneers of heresy. It is always invoking human respect and carnal prudence, wishing to make Mary so little of a Mary, that Protestants may feel at ease about her. Its ignorance of theology makes it unsubstantial and unworthy. It is not the prominent characteristic of our religion which it ought to be. It has no faith in itself. Hence it is, that Jesus is not loved, that heretics are not converted, that the Church is not exalted; that souls, which might be saints, wither and dwindle; that the sacraments are not rightly frequented, or souls enthusiastically evangelized. Jesus is obscured, because Mary is kept in the background. Thousands of souls perish, because Mary is withheld from them. It is the miserable unworthy shadow which we call our devotion to the Blessed Virgin, that is the cause of all these wants and blights; these evils and omissions and declines. Yet, if we are to believe the revelations of the saints, God is pressing for a greater, wider, a stronger, quite another devotion to His Blessed Mother.'"

—In his Encyclical Letter of 1849, Pius IX wrote: "On this hope we chiefly rely, that the most Blessed Virgin—who raised the height of merits above all the choirs of Angels to the throne of the Deity, and by the foot of Virtue 'bruised the serpent's head,' and who, being constituted between Christ and His Church, and, being wholly sweet and full of graces, hath ever delivered the Christian people from calamities of all sorts and from the snares and assaults of all enemies and hath rescued them from destruction, and, commiserating our most sad and most sorrowful vicissitudes and our most severe straits, toils, necessities with that most large feeling of her motherly mind—will, by her most present and most powerful patronage with God, both turn away the scourges of Divine wrath wherewith we are afflicted for our sins, and will allay, dissipate the most turbulent storms of ills, wherewith, to the incredible sorrow of our mind, the Church everywhere is tossed, and will turn our sorrow into joy. For ye know very well, Ven. Brethren, that the whole of our confidence is placed in the most Holy Virgin, since God has placed in Mary the fullness of all good, that accordingly we may know that if there is any hope in us, if any grace, if any salvation, it redounds to us from her, because such is His will Who hath willed that we should have everything through Mary."

—"We had heard before, repeatedly, that she was the Mediatrix with the Redeemer; some of us, who do not read Marian books, have heard now for the first time, that she was ever our 'Co-Redemptress.' The evidence lies, not in any insulated passage of a devotional writer (which was alleged in plea for the language of M. Olier), but in formal answers from Archbishops and Bishops to the Pope as to what they desired in regard to the declaration of the Immaculate Conception as an Article of Faith. Thus the Archbishop of Syracuse wrote, 'Since we know certainly that she, in the fulness of time, was Co-redemptress of the human race, together with her Son Jesus Christ our Lord.' From North Italy the Bishop of Asti wrote of 'the dogma of the singular privilege granted by the Divine Redeemer to His pure mother, the Co-redemptress of the world.' In South Italy the Bishop of Gallipoli wrote, 'the human race, whom the Son of God, from her, redeemed; whom, together with Him, she herself co-redeemed.' The Bishop of Cariati prayed the Pope to 'command all the sons of Holy Mother Church and thy own, that no one of them should dare at any time hereafter to suspect as to the Immaculate Conception of their Co-redeemer.' From Sardinia, the Bishop of Alghero wrote, 'It is the common consent of all the faithful, and the common wish and desire of all, that our so beneficent Parent and Co-redeemer should be presented by the Apostolic See with the honour of this most illustrious mystery.' Spain, the Bishop of Almeria justified the attribute by appeal to the service of the Conception. The Church, adapting to the Mother of God in the Office of the Conception that text, 'Let Us make a help like unto Him,' assures us of it. and confirms those most ancient traditions, 'Companion of the Redeemer,' 'Co-Redemptress,' 'Authoress of everlasting salvation.' The Bishops refer to. these as ancient, well-known, traditionary titles, at least in their Churches in North and South Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, Spain."

—"As our Redemption gained its sufficiency and might from Jesus, so, they say, did it gain its beauty and loveliness from the aid of Mary. As we are clothed with the merits of Christ, so also, they say, with the merits of Mary. As Jesus rose again the third day without seeing corruption, so they speak of her Resurrection so as to anticipate corruption, in some three days;' as He was the first-fruits of them that slept, so is she; as He was taken up into heaven in the body so, they say, was she; as He sits at the Right Hand of God, so she at His Right Hand; as He is there our perpetual Intercessor with the Father, so she with Him; as 'no man cometh to the Father.' Jesus saith, 'but by Me;' so 'no man cometh to Jesus', they say, 'but by her;' as He is our High Priest, so she, they say, a Priestess; He, our High Priest, gave us the sacrament of His Body and Blood; so, they say, did she, 'her will conspiring with the will of her Son to the making of the Eucharist, and assenting to her Son so giving and offering Himself for food and drink, since we confess that the sacrifice and gifts, given, to us under the form of bread and wine, are truly hers and appertain unto her. As in the Eucharist He is present and we receive Him, so she, they say, is present an received in that same sacrament. The priest is 'minister of Christ,' and 'minister of Mary.' They seem to assign to her an office, like that of God the Holy Ghost, in dwelling in the soul. They speak of 'souls born not of blood, nor of flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God and Mary;' that 'the Holy Ghost chose to make use of our Blessed Lady to bring His fruitfulness into action by producing in her and by her Jesus Christ in His members;' that 'according to that word, 'the kingdom of God is within you,' in like manner the kingdom of our Blessed Lady is principally in the interior of a man, his soul; that 'when Mary has struck her roots in the soul, she produces there marvels of grace, which she alone can produce, because she alone is the fruitful Virgin, who never has had, and never will have, her equal in purity and fruitfulness.'"

—(Oswald.) "'We maintain a (co-)presence of Mary in the Eucharist. This is a necessary inference from our Marian theory, and we shrink back from no consequence.' 'We are much inclined,' he says afterwards, 'to believe an essential co-presence of Mary in her whole person, with body and soul, under the sacred species. Certainly to such a presence in the Eucharist, 1. there is required a glorious mode of being of the Virgin body of the Holy Mother. We are not only justified in holding this as to Mary, but we have well-nigh proved it. 2. The assumption of a bodily presence of Mary in the Eucharist compels self-evidently the assumption of a multi-location (i.e. a contemporaneous presence in different portions of space) of Mary, according to her flesh too. 3. One who would receive this must be ready to admit a compenetration of the Body of Christ and of that of the Virgin in the same portion of space, i.e. under the sacred species.' The writer subsequently explains that 'the "lac virginale" must be looked upon as that of Mary, which is primarily present in the Eucharist, whereto, in further consequence, the whole Christ the Head, the Blessed Virgin is, as also her soul, would be joined.' 'The Blood of the Lord, and the lac of His Virgin Mother, are both present in the sacrament.'"

—"'Assuming that, in and under Christ the Head, the Blessed Virgin is, after her Assumption, as it were, the neck of the Church, so that all grace whatever flows to the Body through her, that is, through her prayers, it might be argued, that, for such as have this belief to ask anything of or through her, is identical in sense, but in point of form better, than to ask it directly of Christ, in like manner as to ask anything of or through Christ, is identical in sense, but clearer and fuller in point of form, than to ask it directly of the Father. And hence, it might seem that it would bean improvement, if, reserving only the use of the appointed forms for the making of the Sacraments, and an occasional use of the Lord's Prayer (and this rather from respect to the letter of their outward institution than from any inward.199 necessity or propriety), every prayer, both of individuals and of the Church, were addressed to or through Blessed Mary, a form beginning, 'Our Lady, which art in heaven,' etc., being preferred for general use to the original letter of the Lord's Prayer; and the Psalter, the Te Deum, and all the daily Offices, being used in preference with similar accommodation.'" Horrid ravings of Faber, whose writings are very popular among Papists.—"'There is some portion of the Precious Blood which once was Mary's own blood, and which remains still in our Blessed Lord, incredibly exalted by its union with His Divine Person, yet still the same. This portion of Himself, it is piously believed, has not been allowed to undergo the usual changes of human substance. At this moment, in heaven, He retains something which was once His Mother's, and which is, possibly, visible, as such, to the saints and angels. He vouchsafed at mass to show to S. Ignatius the very part of the Host which had once belonged to the substance of Mary. It may have a distinct and singular beauty in heaven, where, by His compassion, it may one day be our blessed lot to see it and adore it. But with the exception of this portion of it, the Precious Blood was a growing thing,' "&c.

Enough! enough! every one of our readers will cry out, and therefore we stay our hand. Surely "for this cause, God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

“After 800+ posts it has become evident that no matter how many times and ways Catholics tell others that they don’t worship Mary, it is an exercise in futility to attempt to convince those who insist otherwise. Just love God, Christ, and His mother and practice your faith with pride. I say this as a Protestant who loves my Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ.”

Hey, yours might be the best post on the whole thread. It might be futile to argue about whether or not a cat thinks that Catholics worship Mary, but I am interested in how such a cat thinks Catholics worship Mary but don’t know they do, and how Catholics in fact call such worship the gravest sort of sin. I reckon Catholics must be thought of as the shoddiest goddess worshippers ever.

Freegards, great post, God bless

Of course not, it is not something the Catholic Church would study or publish. The only "evidence" available are from ex-priests, ex-Catholics, and non-Catholic (some hate sites) sources. The record shows it has been, and is, particularly prevalent in Central and South America.

I want make sure that I understand what you are saying before I comment further. Are you saying that Catholics all know that they are worshipping Mary but that there is a world-wide conspiracy to keep this hidden; that only ex-priests and ex-Catholics are letting the secret out of the bag?

And don't forget that the Aramaic speaking Jesus would often speak to his Aramaic speaking Disciples in classical Greek, He often did this to confuse them and to mock them.

Additionally, if the Bible doesn't specifically say something happened, then it didn't happen. However, there are some exceptions to this rule. We must ignore the fact that the Bible never talks about Mary having other children, because logic would dictate the Mary and Joseph's sexual yearnings would certainly take precedence over caring for the Son of God.

Also, the Reformers were right about everything EXCEPT what they believed about the Blessed Virgin. They didn't have any problems rewriting Scripture, disobeying the Holy See, in fact they were even willing to risk death. However, they retained their beliefs about the Blessed Mother because they were "too Catholic."

Also, all of the Apostles taught "sola scriptura" even though Scripture HAD NOT yet been written and despite the fact that it would be another FIFTEEN CENTURIES before the average person could even hope to obtain their own Bible.

some religions feel that they can misrepresent just what it is that they believe for various reasons. For instance Scientology now has a church and a cross, and claims to be a religion. Tom Cruise claims that he is both a Scientologist and a Catholic. Do you personally believe that this is possible?

The Mormons claim to be Christian but an in-depth study of the faith will eventually turn up that it has nothing much in common with mainstream Christian faiths, not the least of which it rejects the OT and the NT in that "they must be interpreted correctly" and are not the scriptures most used by them, but instead they refer to the BOM. Also they believe that Joseph Smith needs a password from everybody after death so that he can stamp their way into heaven.

If a Pesbyterian church really did claim to worship Christ, yet had statues of Calvin, more than lifesize, inside, outside, in every home, and he was offered up prayers, and they claimed that he stands between man and Christ, what would you think?

>>The Mormon Freepers say that the LDS believes such and such. The ex-Mormons say the LDS believes such and such. The never-Mormons say that the LDS believes such and such.<<

Please understand, I’m not being snippy here, I’m genuinely asking.

A Mormon and an ex-Mormon can SAY things. The Mormon gives documentation from the Mormon church and the ex-Mormon does not have documentation, it should stand with the documentation. Otherwise actually it’s slander (or really libel because it is printed).

Here, it’s not Catholics and ex-Catholics (mostly) it’s other denominations. So a Catholic shows Vatican documentation and says this is proof, but another denomination states, here is a group of Catholics that don’t agree. Does that make the splinter group right and the documentation wrong? If it’s not wrong, then it should not be allowed to be “Catholics” but rather “some Catholics”.

If an LDS FReeper states we believe in hell and gives documentation that says it (which I had posted to me on an LDS thread), an ex-LDS stating simply “no you don’t” should not nulify the documentation.

The proof is in the pudding, so to speak. All of us have been asked for documentation, a link, to something that we have said. When a Vatican document (not a website by Catholics, because that would mean that a DUer can state his interpertation of the consitution without showing proof from the consitution) is given, that should be taken as fact unless another Vatican document is produced to say the contrary. Vatican document, not what the AP or Reuters say the Pope says because we know how they handle conservatives all the way around!

I’m sure that when the LDS FReepers tiff, they show documentation. In fact, from what I saw on one of the threads, many times the ex-LDS ASKED for documentation and didn’t get it. Then no, without proof, it cannot be taken as fact. That is only reasonable.

>>Tom Cruise claims that he is both a Scientologist and a Catholic. <<

Can you give a link to that? Because....

http://www.google.com/search?q=tom+cruise+Catholic&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1

Does not state that Tom says he is Catholic but rather that Both Nicole and Katie (the wives) are Catholic.

Many times the LDS freeper know what the anti is up too and wishes not to play their game.

I am sure there were times you might have saw the question answered when from a legit inquirer!

Then no, without proof, it cannot be taken as fact. That is only reasonable.

Amen sister!

Speaking for myself here, (and I have no intention of undermining your dialog with the RM, I'm interested to see how it will play out), I'm perfectly content to let any post I make that's done with source material stand on its own, as, when I make posts, I'm not only speaking to the person I'm posting to, but I also consider any lurker out there.

I have confidence in the ability of the lurker to be reasonable. IOW, I'm not so concerned with "getting the last word in" (not that you are either, I'm just saying it for the record), because, like you said, if one has sources to back one's claim up and another doesn't, it doesn't really matter, to a reasonable person, who gets the last word. There can be 1,000 posts after a reasonable post, but if none of them actually respond to the original reasonable one, then it's just further evidence to any reasonable lurker that the "other side" doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Take my latest post discussing the "worship of Mary", for example. I'm still waiting to see if anyone responds to it, but if they don't, and just keep posting the same claim over and over again ("Catholics worship Mary, therefore they are idolatrous"), then any reasonable lurker isn't going to be convinced of their position, no matter how many times they say it.

"Some" religions? You only give an example of scientology, which claims to be a religion, but doesn't meet the standards generally accepted to mark a religion. I can't imagine what they think they're doing with cross (and I don't think I want to know). I doubt that it's possible to be a scientologist and a Catholic at the same time, unless you have a truly bizarre understanding of one or both, but there's no proposition so nuts that someone won't claim to accept it.

What kind of example is this? It seems to me they just define "Christian" differently from the way the major Christian religions do. Are they making a secret of what they actually believe -- seems to me they're quite open about it.

I would think that they considered Calvin a saint, someone to be honored and respected as especially close to God. Or do you mean if they had statues only of Calvin and addressed all their prayers to Calvin and maybe had some kind of communion service ("Do this in memory of Calvin"?) -- because you don't mention any other aspect of this hypothetical church -- In that case, I would think they were very strange indeed.

I have seen stats that say most Catholics think that birth control is harmless and in keeping with Church teaching. How come there hasn’t been a decree that agrees with this thinking? Why did the Catholic Church teach unkowing Mary worship when it would have been easier to just come out with Mary worship?

Beats me, but they certainly do teach people things about Mary that produce worship, in some.

Post 781... I appreciate you taking the time to type and post such a lengthy explantion

I'm sure the wise guys didn't go around the countryside hunting down babies that would one day be the King of any given race, or religion...

I imagine they KNEW that the Messiah was prophesied in the OT and they knew THIS King was the one the world was waiting for...

This was no ordinary King...And they knew it...I don't think they were just showing respect and honor to a king...They were worshipping and bowing to THE King...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.