From Dr. White's article:
Mr. Madrid speaks of "anti-Marianism" in the above quotation. From the Roman position, the Protestant's refusal to accept the Roman Catholic teachings on Mary is "anti-Marianism." Yet, is this a valid statement on Mr. Madrid's part? I certainly do not believe so. Rejection of non-Biblical and anti- Biblical teachings about Mary does not make one "anti-Mary." Indeed, one might well assert that to be concerned about maintaining the truth about she who was "blessed among women" would include safeguarding her against idolatrous worship, etc. I am sure that if Mary was aware of the millions who attempt to pray to her, ask her intercession, and dedicate themselves to her, all in direct violation of Biblical commands, she would be greatly distressed and grieved. I believe that God, in His mercy, has surely shielded Mary from such knowledge.
(*sigh*) This is why so few discussions between Catholics and anti-Catholics (especially "professional" anti-Catholics) go anywhere but downhill, degenerating into mere quarrels: how can one, supposedly in contrast to one's opponent, present oneself as "the adult in the room (i.e. the one who's going by reason, God's Word, and common sense)"--while turning around only a few words later and spraying raw opinions, assertions, begged questions, and a host of other fallacies, willy-nilly? To wit:
Rejection of non-Biblical and anti- Biblical teachings about Mary does not make one "anti-Mary."
Two answers to that:
1) It's really not sporting of Dr. White to "move the goal-posts" like that; "Marianism" (by which is commonly understood the fulness of Marian Devotion, found richly in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches) is hardly the same as "Mary", and "anti-Marianism" is hardly the same as being "anti-Mary" (whatever that might mean!). I certainly trust that Dr. White is not "anti-Mary" (and that his desire to protect her dignity is sincere), but he is most certainly a staunch opponent of "Marianism" (as defined above).
2) If one assumes the non-Biblical and anti-Biblical teaching of "sola Scriptura", then Dr. White's conclusion might follow; but if one is content not to add to Scripture in that way (or to reject the Church Who discerned the contents of that Scripture, and whose early bishops wrote the entire New Testament), then he's on very shaky ground, indeed.
Indeed, one might well assert that to be concerned about maintaining the truth about she [sic] who was "blessed among women" would include safeguarding her against idolatrous worship, etc.
Safeguarding the truth about the Blessed Virgin would certainly include safeguarding her (and those who woudl practise it) against idolatrous worship. I confess to being a bit more cautious, however, about agreeing with Dr. White's inclusion of the tiny qualifier, "etc.", since it may contain many things which, though good and wholesome, might do no more than run counter to Dr. White's personal tastes.
I am sure that if Mary was aware of the millions who attempt to pray to her, ask her intercession, and dedicate themselves to her, all in direct violation of Biblical commands, she would be greatly distressed and grieved. I believe that God, in His mercy, has surely shielded Mary from such knowledge.
(*sigh*) This is where the typical faithful, well-informed Catholic starts to shake his/her head, and despair of any meeting of the minds. A clearer example of utter, raw opinion and appeal to emotion/the gallery, unfounded by any Biblical mandate whatsoever, I have not seen in quite some time.
After this, Dr. White goes on to lambaste the poetic "language of love" used in some of the more sentimental prayers and songs regarding the Blessed Virgin, suggesting that they most certainly violate the distinction between "veneration" and "adoration" (which he would call "worship"--which is rather a different thing, etymologically). To that, I can only say that he--who looks with extreme disfavour at the Catholic Inquisitions--is not putting himself in the curious position of denouncing any hyperbolic love poetry whatsoever; and I don't relish the idea of saying to my wife, "I am yours, completely!" only to turn and face the righteous scowl of Dr. White, who would admonish me about belonging primarily to God, first and foremost! (Would he really doubt that I *know* that?)