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

Sword and the Trowel ^ | 1866 | Charles Spurgeon

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Dr. Pusey on the Worship of Mary in the Church of Rome

by C. H. Spurgeon

From the January 1866 "Sword and Trowel Spurgeon"

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.

Blessings said to be obtained through Mary.

—"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.'"

Mary worship held up as a cure for trouble.

—"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.'"

The Pope's whole reliance on the Virgin.

—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."

Mary blasphemously called Co-Redemptress with our Lord.

—"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."

A Parallel infamously drawn between Jesus and Mary.

—"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.'"

Shameless declaration that Mary is in the Eucharist.

—(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.'"

Mariolotry to swallow up all other devotion.

—"'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."

[maryz]

I believe what I read in the Scripture, whether I understand it or not

Maybe you're just phrasing it badly, but that sounds really strange, sort of like the Jewish student who once told me, "Oh, I can read Hebrew, but I don't know any."

[OLD REGGIE]

It's settled, imho, when we say "Catholics do not worship Mary."

But "Catholics" do worship Mary. (Some implied).

You are missing the point that the "Official" teaching of the RCC is not in question. It is the practice of (some) Catholics.

You can no more make an all inclusive statements of what all Catholics believe or do than I can.

Catholics believe what Catholics believe.

Your declaration of what all Catholics believe has NO standing in an honest discussion.

[netmilsmom]

>>Your declaration of what all Catholics believe has NO standing in an honest discussion.<<

So why not talk to the “Catholics” who you think do. Personally, I can’t read people’s minds and don’t know their intent in “Worshiping” Mary.

But the FReepers don’t, so why keep the debate up?

[maryz]

I know you don't like philological arguments, but if you can't read that whole paragraph and see that he (or his translator) is not using "worship" in the sense it's used in this thread -- and the entire content of the paragraph argues that he's not -- then it's not worth discussing!

I knew I should have stuck to dulia, hyperdulia and latria! ;-)

[Petrosius]

But "Catholics" do worship Mary. (Some implied). You are missing the point that the "Official" teaching of the RCC is not in question. It is the practice of (some) Catholics. You can no more make an all inclusive statements of what all Catholics believe or do than I can. … Your declaration of what all Catholics believe has NO standing in an honest discussion.

Then the honest statement should be: "Some misinformed Catholics violate their faith and worship Mary." (Something that I truly doubt and if true would include and statistical meaningless number.) Rather there has been an attempt to use a broad brush to imply (or rather state) that the worship of Mary is a general characteristic of the Catholic faith.

[Petronski]

But "Catholics" do worship Mary. (Some implied).

"Some" is NOT implied at any level the reasonable person could perceive it. Without a modifier, it looks more like an absolute or near-absolute.

I believe the ambiguity is intentional.

[OLD REGGIE]

This again, perfectly dovetails into the distinctions made via latria, hyperdulia, and dulia. I grant you the author of the paragraph you cite above doesn't specifically use the word "hyperdulia" to qualify his use of the word "worship", however this is understood, unless for some reason I cannot fathom, you believe the author is brazenly stating here that he is encouraging the worship of Mary on the same level as worship of God.

The author was Pope Pius X. Explain to him how important it is to distinguish exactly what he "brazenly" meant by "worship".

[Religion Moderator]

I am not the arbiter of truth, for that posters must turn to God or whoever they consider to be the final authority.

I am not the arbiter of logical proofs, for that the posters must turn to the mathematicians, logicians and philosophers.

I am not the arbiter of fact, for that the posters must turn to the scientists, physical evidence, testimonies and historians.

I am not the arbiter of the meaning of words, and I'm not sure there exists such a final authority so the burden rests with the posters to explain what they mean.

But when it comes to this Religion Forum, I lay out the guidelines and resolve disputes within those guidelines. But I do not "settle" matters of dogma, doctrine, tradition or meanings of words.

If a guideline, rule, policy or settlement exists which affects this Religion Forum, I will do all I can to see it enforced.

In that regard, the "open" threads on the Religion Forum are a town square. To quote myself:

Posters may argue for or against beliefs of any kind. They may tear down other's beliefs. They may ridicule, similar to the Smoky Backroom with the exception that a poster must never “make it personal.” Reading minds and attributing motives are forms of “making it personal.” Thin-skinned posters will be booted from “open” threads because in the town square, they are the disrupters.

As long as the posters on the "open" threads are within the guidelines, they have a voice even if that voice may be gibberish, silly, irrational, illogical or even untruthful in the minds of other posters.

[maryz]

LOL! And you’d better be able to explain in Latin or Italian! ;-)

[Old Mountain man]

Is that why we never see you on the LDS forums running down our Church? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

[Iscool]

Maybe you're just phrasing it badly, but that sounds really strange, sort of like the Jewish student who once told me, "Oh, I can read Hebrew, but I don't know any."

Not at all...If any man/woman claims he understands everything in the Scriptures, he's a liar...

There's prophecy that hasn't been fulfilled yet...There's scripture written to people in the future...

The fact that your church completely bungles the Book of Revelation and most of the scripture except for maybe most of the historical content proves what I say...Your church claims Revelation is 'allegorical' but whatever it points to, they don't have a clue...

Your Origen didn't 'get' most of the scripture so rather than accept what he could understand, he made the claim that most of the scripture is allegorical...And you people followed him right into the ditch...

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I've seen a great many Protestants who seem to revere the Bible far above Jesus Christ and that is worship, or idol worship.

Really? A "great many?"

I've seen FR Catholics make this claim, but I've never seen any evidence for this spurious charge. I can't even imagine what that would look like.

Protestants do not kneel to the Bible.

Protestants do not pray to the Bible.

Protestants do not believe the Bible is a mediator between God and men.

Protestants do not believe the Bible morphs from paper into God Himself because "another Christ" says some words over it.

OTOH, Protestants believe the Bible is the inspired word of God (and last time I checked, the RCC catechism says the same thing.)

God chose to make Himself known to men by revealing Himself in Scripture which is comprehended by a heart that's been reborn and a mind that's been renewed by the Holy Spirit.

WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH
Of the Holy Scriptures

I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased...

IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.

V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

[maryz]

That's why I wondered whether you were just phrasing it badly. And you were. And I have every respect for Credo ut intelligam -- oops! That's Catholic!

Augustine, I believe, said that Scripture must be understood on the literal, figurative, allegorical and anagogical levels -- at the same time. I believe he didn't quite get through Genesis this way -- takes it out of you.

Just out of curiosity, how many books by Catholic scriptural scholars have you read? My guess would be fewer than one.

Good night for now! I've been up since 3:30 a.m. EDT . . .

[Running On Empty]

I appreciate your mention of the four senses of understanding Scripture—literal, figurative, allegorical and anagogical.

So few people seem to mention this —perhaps it isn’t as well known as I thought it to be. In any case, it’s very helpful to put these “Four Senses of Scripture” to use when reading and praying the Word of the Lord.

[maryz]

Protestants do not kneel to the Bible.
Protestants do not pray to the Bible.
Protestants do not believe the Bible is a mediator between God and men.

Did you miss this thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2014373/posts?

I would simply tell you the answer. The Bible is the Word of God. Since Jesus is the Word, they are one and the same.

17 posted on Sunday, May 11, 2008 3:12:35 PM by Grunthor (McCain voters believe that it's possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

[markomalley]

Your declaration of what all Catholics believe has NO standing in an honest discussion.

And some Protestants dance around fires at night.

And some Protestants handle vipers.

And some Protestants practice necromancy.

And some Protestants support homosexuality.

And some Protestants carry signs around military funerals saying "God D@mn the USA."

And some Protestants support Louis Farrakhan.

And some Protestants...

Should it be appropriate to attack Protestantism because of the beliefs or practices of some aberrant groups or individuals?

My gosh, there are some Catholics who believe that the papacy has been vacant since the death of Pius XII. There are some who believe that the Vatican has no authority since the first Vatican Council in the 19th Century. There are some Catholics who believe that all sorts of things. That doesn't mean that they are Catholic beliefs. That means that they are freaks and are outside of the teachings of the Church. In all cases, it means they are heretics. It some cases, it means that they are schismatics.

You can find a group of Catholics who believe in the ordination of women (and some who believe they have been ordained...which is simply not possible, no matter what the motions are). You can find a group of Catholics who believe in new age, paganistic practices. Just because some Catholics believe something, doesn't mean it is Catholic, any more than snake-handlers are representative of Protestants (to include restorationists, evangelicals, fundamentalists, baptist-briders, or other groups). Freaks are freaks.

If you want to say "some Catholics worship Mary as a goddess..." I'll agree with you. If you qualify your statement with the word "some," I'll bet that all of the Catholic FReepers will agree with you...no matter what aberrant behavior you choose to attack. But your "elipsis" of "some" is as unacceptable as if I said "Protestants handle snakes." (of course, just implying "some")