Replies

Well, I would say we have done hit a irreconcilable issue here. You say we are worshipping her. We say we're not. I think we have to table it.

No question that God COULD have ravished Mary and impregnated her against her will. Do you really think he WOULD have?

It is true that we prize Mary rather more not only than the protomartyr (Steve?) but than all other Saints. The lingo I was recently made aware of is hyperdoulia (The first Google entry on the word - I checked because I was uncertain of the spelling - is

The distinctions which the Catholic theologians made between latreia, doulia, and hyperdoulia or hyoperdulia, are absurd, groundless sophisms.

and it's at http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/feuerbach/works/essence/ec07.htm -- Is that great or WHAT?)

As I say, I think this is irreconcilable. I do not recognize myself or my actions in what you say. I suspect that part of the issue is cultural -- even though it was Milton who said, I think "HE for God only, She for Christ in Him (though I find that some think that a scribal error and the original was She for God AND him, but I just work here) and Milton was no Catholic.

Still the idea of anyone, even Paul, saying "be imitators of me as I am of Christ," is just a non-starter these days. I think in earlier times no one would have a problem with giving "all" one's allegiance to a lady whose first command is, to nobody's surprise, "Give all your allegiance to my Son."

Well, I would say we have done hit a irreconcilable issue here. You say we are worshipping her. We say we're not. I think we have to table it.

No question that God COULD have ravished Mary and impregnated her against her will. Do you really think he WOULD have?
First of all, the imagery that you used, Mad Dawg, was deliberately inflamatory as if God would rape Mary. No such suggestion was made. Rather, the issue is the Sovereignty of God. As Paul said in Romans 9, hath not the Potter power over the clay to make of it what he will (paraphrased)? God doesn't ask permission. God directs what is going to happen. He doesn't say "Abraham, will you leave Ur and go someplace where I'm going to lead you?" He directs Abraham and tells him what will happen. He doesn't say to David, will you be my king over Israel? He anoints David when David isn't even looking to be King and says "You will be King." He doesn't go to the Apostles and say "will you follow me?" He commands, "Follow me." I know you don't see this being an Arminian Catholic. However, if you look at Scripture, I don't know of a single instance where a person, being, or anything else HAD TO give God permission to do anything that He willed to do. Mary included. There is no question. There is a statement of what is going to occur. 30And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
Mary's exclamation is not "I give you permission to do this." But "Let it be so!" So the idea that Mary gave God the permission to use her is not really biblical in the actual words of the encounter nor in the way we see God operate in Scripture. And, if he did impregnate her without even letting her know, it would have been within His rights as God. He made the vessel. He can do with her as He wishes. Still, He chose to reveal what He was going to do (at least in part) to Mary and she was genuinely humbled and astonished by it. To say, however, that She gave us the Word and She somehow contributed to us being saved is also antiscriptural and ventures into Mariolatry.

Jesus gave His life. He gave Himself to die on the cross. He gave Himself to become a man so that He could take our penalty. It's all about God and the reason we Protestants react so strongly is because Mary is getting much of the credit and focus where only focus on the Savior is due.

As I say, I think this is irreconcilable.
In the current mindstate of Catholics where Scripture is not held as the rule of faith and practice, I would agree with that.

I do not recognize myself or my actions in what you say.
Honestly Mad Dawg, I haven't seen a lot of it in you myself. Others on this thread I have, and you yourself are well acquainted with the overfocus on Mary in most sectors. Anecdotally, I go to the Catholic Store online and click on Statues. There are 8 Jesus statues. There are 20 Mary Statues. There are 12 books on the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There are 44 on Mary/Rosary. There are 13 Catholic pictures. 7 of them have Mary in them or are all about Mary. It goes on and on. Mary IS worshipped in Catholicism. And the worship of Mary takes the focus off of her Son. Irreconcilable. Short of the Holy Spirit, I agree.

Still the idea of anyone, even Paul, saying "be imitators of me as I am of Christ," is just a non-starter these days. I think in earlier times no one would have a problem with giving "all" one's allegiance to a lady whose first command is, to nobody's surprise, "Give all your allegiance to my Son."
By the very words which you attribute to Mary (and others, not trying to single you out here), Mary would be appalled at such a statement. Mary was a humble faithful woman. The apparitions of her are not. They demand the glory be given to "Mary" and Scripturally illiterate Catholics follow (regardless if the Church officially sanctions the apparition or not) by the MILLIONS. Idolatry by any other name is still the same, Mad Dawg.