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

Sword and the Trowel ^ | 1866 | Charles Spurgeon

[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")