"But dude, I REALLY hate the Catholic Church. Truth is not the issue."
Posted on 04/12/2008 7:19:29 AM PDT by DouglasKC
A major area of doctrine that sets Roman Catholicism apart from the rest of this world's Christianity is its view of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Many weighty schools of thought and doctrine center on the person and function of Mary, and if one examines Roman Catholicism to any degree, the importance Catholics place on the mother of our Savior becomes readily apparent.
These beliefs are not just intellectual. They have led to applications and manifestations that literally fill volumes. For example, when a Catholic prays the rosary, the "Hail Mary" is said nine times as often as the Lord's Prayer. Every Catholic church boasts a statue of Mary, if not an outright shrine, and the graven images of Mary often have more prominence than those of Christ.
This emphasis on Mary caused Mark Twain to observe in The Innocents Abroad, Volume II:
In all seriousness—without meaning to be frivolous—without meaning to be irreverent, and more than all, without meaning to be blasphemous,—I state as my simple deduction from the things I have seen and the things I have heard, that the Holy Personages rank thus in Rome:
First—"The Mother of God"—otherwise the Virgin Mary.
Second—The Deity.
Third—Peter.
Fourth—Some twelve or fifteen canonized Popes and martyrs.
Fifth—Jesus Christ the Saviour—(but always as an infant in arms).
I may be wrong in this—my judgment errs often, just as is the case with other men's—but it is my judgment, be it good or bad.
Just here I will mention something that seems curious to me. There are no "Christ's Churches" in Rome, and no "Churches of the Holy Ghost," that I can discover. There are some four hundred churches, but about a fourth of them seem to be named for the Madonna and St. Peter. There are so many named for Mary that they have to be distinguished by all sorts of affixes, if I understand the matter rightly.
Sources of Doctrine
This past summer, as Pope John Paul II focused his efforts on reviving Catholicism in Europe, he made numerous statements entrusting the future of Europe to Mary. According to the ZENIT News Agency, he "placed Europe in Mary's hands," so that it will "become a symphony of nations committed to building together the civilization of love and peace." In the church of God, we put things in God's hands. Catholics put things into Mary's hands.
In October 2002, an item of controversy that reappeared in the Vatican—as it does on a regular basis—was the part that Mary plays in salvation and redemption. Large numbers of Catholic scholars, theologians, and clergy—including Pope John Paul II—are pushing for Mary to be officially recognized as "Co-Redemptrix," meaning she is a vital part of a Catholic's redemption, although supporters are quick to point out that they never put her on exactly the same level as Jesus Christ.
In God's church, our sole source of doctrinal teaching is the Bible, the inspired Word of God. For Catholics, though, the Bible is only one of the sources of dogma and doctrine—and, of course, they even have their own Bible, which allows them even more liberality when they look for scriptural backing. Another source and foundation of Catholic doctrine is church tradition. This means that if a certain person who meets their qualifications makes a statement, that statement can then be used as a doctrinal reference, just as we would use a scriptural reference. Every so often, one will hear about the Catholic Church canonizing or beatifying someone. In practical terms, this means the new saint is suddenly an authority, and church scholars can now use his or her writings to "prove" their doctrines.
The third source of doctrinal material for Catholics comes from "divine revelation." This can include statements by a Pope when he is speaking ex-cathedra—at which time his words are considered to be infallible—and it can also come from a vision or dream. Very often, church tradition and the associated "divine revelation" outweigh any scriptural basis. The doctrines concerning Mary are prime examples of this.
For instance, Catholics believe in the "Immaculate Conception" of Mary. This major doctrine states that Mary was conceived and born normally, but at the instant when her soul was fused to her flesh, she was protected and exempted from the stain of "original sin." The reasoning is that, for Jesus to be untouched by original sin, his mother, the one who conceived and bore Him, had to be "immaculate" as well.
In the Catholic Encyclopedia article on "Immaculate Conception," the writer admits this cannot be found in the Bible. Under the heading "Proof from Scripture," the article says, "No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture. But the first scriptural passage which contains the promise of the redemption, mentions also the Mother of the Redeemer" (emphasis ours). The rest of the article then explores the "Proof from Tradition" and the "Proof from Reason." In essence, it says that this doctrine lacks scriptural backing, but it has plenty from church tradition and human wisdom. Since Catholics cannot find, or will not acknowledge, any scriptures that disprove it, then it is settled as official doctrine.
The Catholic Encyclopedia's article on "The Blessed Virgin Mary" also never explicitly gives a reason why Mary should be venerated as she is. The best it can do is to say that there is evidence that the early Catholic Church (AD 150-400) venerated her. This grudging admission becomes important later.
Worthy of Worship?
The sole scriptural reference that even remotely suggests that Mary might be worthy of worship can be found in Luke 1:26-30:
Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary. And having come in, the angel said to her, "Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!" But when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God."
While the angel gives Mary a number of high compliments, nothing indicates that she is worthy of worship, let alone being an intercessor between Jesus Christ and His followers, a Co-Redemptrix, sinless for her entire life, or given any other honor aside from being God's chosen vessel for the purpose of the Son of God being made flesh and blood. This is not to denigrate that role in the least, because truly it is a great honor, but God has throughout the ages chosen various people to fill different roles according to His will and purpose—and none of them are shown to be worthy of worship.
In verse 28, Gabriel tells Mary in his salutation that she is "highly favored," and in verse 30, that she "has found favor with God." The Greek word translated highly favored means "to grace," "to endue with special honor," or "to be accepted." The only other place it is used is Ephesians 1:6, where Paul says to the church at Ephesus and to the body of Christ generally, ". . . to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved." From this example, we can see that being "highly favored" is not synonymous with being worthy of worship. Everyone in the body of Christ is highly favored because God has accepted us through the justification brought about by Christ's sacrifice.
In verse 30, Gabriel tells Mary that she has found favor with God. "Favor" is the Greek word charis, which means "graciousness of manner or action." It indicates favor on the part of the giver and thankfulness on the part of the receiver. It is most often translated "grace" in the New Testament. Gabriel tells Mary that she is the recipient of charis, of grace and favor by God—the emphasis is on what God is doing. The type of grace bestowed on Mary is implied to be sweetness, charm, loveliness, joy, and delight. Again, we see nothing in this verse to give any indication that Mary should be worshipped. She simply received God's favor by being chosen to fulfill this role.
Blessed Among Women
Mary's cousin Elizabeth is inspired to recognize that Mary's baby is not just an ordinary baby, and she calls both Mary and her unborn Son "blessed":
And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. Then she spoke out with a loud voice and said, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!" (Luke 1:41-42)
Blessed literally means "to speak well of." It signifies celebrating with praises and invoking blessings upon a person. The New Testament uses it frequently, sometimes in relation to Christ, but often in relation to inanimate objects such as fish and loaves of bread. The Amplified Bible translates it as "favored of God." Again, nothing in the wording indicates that Mary is worthy of worship.
Mary is not the only woman to be given the title of "blessed" in the Bible. In the Song of Deborah, Jael—the woman who invited the fleeing Sisera into her tent, encouraged him to sleep, and then drove a tent peg through his skull—is accorded this same honor: "Most blessed among women is Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite; blessed is she among women in tents" (Judges 5:24). Here, she is lauded as "blessed"—even "most blessed"—but there is no record of a shrine dedicated to her or of anybody worshipping her. She is simply recognized with a very honorable mention for the part she played in carrying out God's plan.
During Christ's ministry, a woman tries to draw special attention to Jesus' mother, and Christ puts things in the proper perspective for us:
And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, "Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!" But He said, "More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!" (Luke 11:27-28)
Jesus agrees that, even though his mother was "happy and to be envied," as the Amplified Bible puts it, even more blessed is anyone who hears God's Word and obeys it. He acknowledges that, yes, His mother was a fine lady—but anyone focusing on the personage of Mary was really missing the point. Christ was interested in the attitude and conduct of people, not their veneration of any human being!
We see a similar phenomenon within mainstream Christianity. Protestants tend to twist the gospel into simply a message about the person of Jesus Christ, and they like to gloss over the message that He actually spoke: "Repent [hear and obey], so you can be in alignment with the soon-coming Kingdom of God!" (Matthew 3:2; 4:17; Mark 1:15). They are so in love with the personality that they cannot hear what He says.
In addition to receiving a unique calling and favor by God, Mary was blessed in other ways. Evidence from the few Scriptural references to her shows that she was poor in spirit, meek, merciful, and pure in heart, and so, according to the Beatitudes of Matthew 5, she was blessed. She was undoubtedly persecuted for righteousness sake because she gave birth to what the world believed to be an illegitimate child. More than three decades afterward, there was still remembrance of Mary being pregnant without being married, when the Pharisees snidely remarked that they were not born of fornication—implying that Christ was (John 8:41). If the people did not believe that Christ was the Son of God—even after seeing Him live a perfect life and perform many miracles—it is unlikely they would have had any reason to believe that Mary was a virgin when she bore Him. She was persecuted and stigmatized because she accepted a responsibility that was anathema to those around her. She knew the truth, Joseph knew the truth, and of course, God knew the truth, and that was enough for Mary. It appears she endured the circumstance without complaining, and so was blessed.
Pagan Origins
The references to Mary in Luke 1 are the core scriptures that Catholic scholars use to try to prove that Mary is worthy of our worship. It is evident that the verses say little more than that Mary was given grace and favor by God, as we all have. They simply cannot be used as a starting point for establishing a doctrine of worship.
Aside from the little that the Bible says about Mary, there are other significant biblical principles that directly contradict a doctrine of Mary-worship. We could also examine a whole host of scriptures relating to human death and resurrection to show that Mary is in the same condition as the rest of the dead in Christ—awaiting the resurrection, without consciousness, and not in heaven (Psalm 146:3-4; Ecclesiastes 9:5; Job 14:12; John 3:13; Acts 2:29-34; I Corinthians 15:12-55). We could look at a vast array of scriptures that show that Mary-worship is indeed idolatry, because only God the Father and Jesus Christ are worthy of our worship (Exodus 34:14; Matthew 4:10). We could delve into the singular role that Jesus Christ plays as Mediator of the New Covenant—a role in which He does not need any help (Hebrews 8:6; 9:15; 12:24). These are not difficult concepts. Nevertheless, there is a vital lesson to be learned from this obviously erroneous doctrine.
The veneration of Mary, like many pagan practices, has its origin in the heathen religious system created by Nimrod and Semiramis, and more specifically, from the worship of the "Mother and Child." Through the millennia, the symbol of the "Mother and Child" has been endlessly repeated; one can find evidence of Mother-and-Child worship in all of the nations in ancient times. Though her characteristics varied from culture to culture, the common element is that the Mother was the Queen of Heaven, and she bore fruit even though a virgin.
In China, Semiramis became known as the "Holy Mother." The Germans named her "Hertha." The Scandinavians called her "Disa." Among the Druids, the "Vigo-Paritura" was worshipped as the "Mother of God." To the Greeks, she was "Aphrodite." To the Romans she was known as "Venus," and her son was "Jupiter." The Canaanites, and sometimes even the Israelites, worshipped "Ashtoreth" (Judges 2:13; 10:6; I Samuel 7:3-4; 12:10; I Kings 11:5, 33; II Kings 23:13), who was also known as "the queen of heaven" (Jeremiah 7:18). In Ephesus, the Great Mother was known as "Diana." T.W. Doane in his book Bible Myths sums it up this way: "Thus we see that the Virgin and child were worshipped in pagan times from China to Britain . . . and even in Mexico the 'Mother and child' were worshipped."
This false worship, having spread from Babylon to the various nations, finally became established at Rome and throughout the Roman Empire. James George Frazer in his The Golden Bough observes:
The worship of the Great Mother . . . was very popular under the Roman Empire. Inscriptions prove that the [Mother and the Child] received divine honors . . . not only in Italy and especially at Rome, but also in the provinces, particularly in Africa, Spain, Portugal, France, Germany, and Bulgaria. (vol. 1, p. 356)
One of the repeated patterns of the Roman church is syncretism, bringing pagan beliefs and practices into the church to keep certain groups happy. This is the same mechanism by which Christmas, Easter, Sunday-worship, and the pagan trinity-god were brought into the Roman church—and which most of mainstream Christianity has accepted without question. The church allowed the pagans within it to continue their practices—in this case, the worship of the Great Mother—only in a slightly different form and with a new name. Many pagans had been drawn to Christianity, but so strong in their mind was the adoration for the Mother-goddess, that they did not want to forsake her. Compromising church leaders saw that, if they could find some similarity in Christianity with the Mother-goddess worship of the pagans, they could increase their numbers by bringing many pagans into their fold. Of course, Mary fit the bill perfectly. So the pagans were allowed to continue their prayers and devotion to the Mother-goddess, but her name was changed to Mary. In this way, the pagan worship of the Mother was given the appearance of Christianity, and the course was set.
We saw earlier that Scripture cannot be used as a starting place for attempting to prove that Mary is worthy of worship. The true beginning for this practice lies with Semiramis and the Babylonian system begun by Nimrod. When the Catholic Encyclopedia presents as proof the historical fact that early Catholics venerated and worshipped Mary, it conveniently leaves out the fact that this adoration started in paganism and was shifted to the personage of the mother of Christ. Once the Roman Church adopted this practice, support had to be found for it, so it "interpreted" Scripture in a way that would lend credence to this practice. However, in these explanations it is apparent that Catholics start with a conclusion and then attempt to find support for it. These Catholic Encyclopedia entries are excellent examples of this.
Even though the worship of Mary will likely never be introduced as doctrine in the church of God, there is still an important object lesson here: Each of us has his own preferences, perspective, inclinations, and weaknesses. These things accompany us when we study the Bible. There are things we would like the Bible to say, based on our experiences, perspective, and particular circumstance. Just as the Catholics created a number of major doctrines out of nothing but pagan tradition, so there is also the potential for us to start with a conclusion or a thought of what makes the most sense to us, and then interpret or even twist the Scriptures to fit our worldview.
The pagans brought their inclinations and preferences of the Mother-goddess into the Roman Catholic Church, and the church officials then sanctified the paganism. This can happen to us, too, if we do not seek the "whole counsel of God" first, and then draw our conclusions later. This can happen to us if we are not careful to "prove all things, and hold fast to that which is good" (I Thessalonians 5:21).
It is a great irony that it was Augustine, the renowned Catholic theologian, who said, "If you believe what you like in the Gospel and reject what you do not like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself" (emphasis ours).
Nearing the end of his life, Peter warns of twisting Scripture and of following those who do:
Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked. (II Peter 3:14-17)
The false doctrine of Mother-goddess worship is propped up by scriptures that have been twisted—and those who have done this have done so to their own destruction, because they have led millions upon millions of people into idolatry. Peter's warning applies to us, too. It is prudent, then, when we are studying, to at all times recognize our limitations, our biases, and our inclinations, so we can see biblical truth without interference from a faulty lens.
Although valid in his critique of Mariology, why did you choose someone with less than orthodox views on something even more important, like the Trinity?
The author and the “church” he writes for are anit-trinitarian, and officially modalist—a very serious error, amounting even to heresy. Such is more serious even than the mariology he criticizes. The author would not be permitted leadership or even communion in most evangelical churches—if his views on the nature of God were known.
From the text above:
“This is the same mechanism by which Christmas, Easter, Sunday-worship, and the pagan trinity-god were brought into the Roman church—and which most of mainstream Christianity has accepted without question.”
As you can see he also denies the validity of Sunday worship and the celebration of Christmas—though these are small points compared to the Trinity.
If we’re going to discuss orthodox belief, lets find an orthodox author.
Though he’s right about Mary, had I known the author and his organization were actually heretical, I wouldn’t have commented on this thread.
It goes to prove how we all ought to read a posting before commenting—and I’m the chief of sinners in that!
I do not understand your statement. Please make it clear.
Did you have something interesting to say? Or do you prefer to spam the forum with large picture images and vapid troll comments?
You wrote:
“You can mock Twain’s observations all you want, but he is presenting a plain and relatively unbiased observation of what he saw in Europe.”
I didn’t mock Twain. I said he was a humorist and dead. What part of that are you disputing? Was he a humorist? Yes. Is he dead? Yes. I never mocked the man.
His observations simply do not add up to facts.
“You probably have to step outside the Catholic church to see it, but as a Protestant, I agree completely with Twain’s observations.”
And if you step INSIDE the Catholic Church, you’ll see the truth. Every Mass is said to the Father, offering the Son, through the Holy Spirit. That means the Trinity comes first ALWAYS.
“There are no Church’s dedicated to “Jesus” or “Christ” or “the Holy Ghost”, or anything like that.”
Wrong. Ever hear of the Gesu? Ever hear of this parishes named “Holy Trinity”? The simple fact is few parishes are named after the Persons of the Trinity, but they do exist. And they are few NOT because the Persons of the Trinity are of lesser importance, but because they are central at EVERY SINGLE MASS EVER SAID. You mean to tell me you’ve never come across a parish named Holy Redeemer, Good Shepherd, Resurrection, etc.? Are you honestly claiming that? What diocese do you live in?
“Just about every church is dedicated to Mary.”
Nonsense. I can think of the churches in my own area. There are ten Catholic parishes and three are named after Mary in one way or another. The others are named after Christ or saints.
“That’s not Twain making things up, that’s a neutral observation.”
No, that’s Twain’s observation and I have no reason to think is is any more neutral than anyone else’s.
“You may not like it, but Protestants cannot reconcile Biblical teaching with the Catholic devotion to Mary.”
Protestant inability to understand either the Bible or Mary has nothing to do with my liking of disliking of anything.
“It makes no sense. It does not compute. And what we do observe, seems to conflict with Biblical declarations against idolatry. It’s been this way for the last 500 years or so, and I don’t suspect it will change anytime soon.”
500 years or so? Thanks for admitting you were not founded or led by Christ, but have only existed for a mere 500 years.
“This is the chief stumbling block to any ecumenism, in my view, much as I would like to see it happen and for Christian unity to be restored. It’ll never happen until Catholics drop all the extraneous and get back to Jesus front and center. Certainly I cannot conceive of Protestants ever giving in and beginning to pray to Mary or saints or anyone other than the Trinity.”
Since so many Protestants don’t even believe in the Trinity or Incarnation today (almost half of those in some evangelical parishes do NOT BELIEVE in Trinity or Incarnation according to surveys) it would seem the real stumbling block may be Protestant ignorance and disbelief.
http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissart2.htm
Um, please note my 2 verbal comments above, especially the 2nd comment.
A picture can however speak louder than words.
I’ve been a part of FR and the religious threads now for many years, and am hardly a troll.
********************
Exactly right. It's unfortunate that there is so much misinformation about Catholicism. Thanks for trying to correct some of it.
So, is it the statues of Mary inside Catholic churches that you believe cross the line into worship? Catholics have statues Joseph and various other Saints as well. I can’t see how statues of Mary would cross the line, since there are plenty of other statues dedicated to other important figures in Christianity.
Is it the Hail Mary, and the rosary? Well, Catholics have hundreds of prayers that are oriented toward many different important figures, included Archangels, Joseph, and every Saint. Mary just happens to be one of the most important of those figures, according to the belief in the immaculate conception. I don’t see how this crosses the line, either.
Every argument you use to say that the honoring of Mary crosses the line fails because Catholics do the same thing for Archangels, Saints, and other important Christian persons.
I’ve been inside many (many) Roman Catholic churches, particularly very old ones in Europe. No one denies that you worship Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as we all ought to. The question is, has the honoring of Mary ever risen to a level that it distracts a worshiper from giving due honor...that is ALL HONOR to our all glorious Trinity?
In the judgment of all non-Roman Catholic Christians in the west about the Roman church for 500 years has been YES: Mary-veneration has indeed crossed the line into worship, impeding and distracting from the worship of the one true God.
None of the first Christians worshipped Mary.
In fact, Mary was among the first group of Christians on the Day of Pentecost.
Bzzzt.
Completely false.
You won’t hear me defending prayers to any saints, angels, or other important Christian personages. Since all honor and veneration is due to God alone, any prayers in worship done to anyone but God are wrong.
It is one thing to respect and honor great Christians of the past, quite another to erect statues for the purposes of prayers to them...
I challenge you to read say the book of Acts or, any of the letters of Saints Paul or Peter, and ask yourself if worship full of statuary and prayers to anyone other than God, was any, ANY part at all, of how they worshiped in that first generation?
"There are no Church's dedicated to 'Jesus' or 'Christ' or 'the Holy Ghost', or anything like that."
In the archdiocese where I belong to a parish, the Archdiocese of Washington, here are some of the names of some of our parishes:
Epiphany
Holy Name
Holy Redeemer (there are three parishes with this name)
Incarnation
Nativity
Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament
Shrine of the Sacred Heart
Ascension
Christ the King
Holy Cross
Holy Face
Holy Ghost
Holy Trinity
Jesus the Divine Word
Jesus the Good Shepherd
Sacred Heart (three of these)
Resurrection
In the archdiocese where I live, the Archdiocese of Baltimore, here are some of the names of some of our parishes:
Church of the Annunciation
Church of the Ascension
Blessed Sacrament
Corpus Christi
Church of the Good Shepherd
Holy Cross
Holy Spirit
Holy Trinity
Most Precious Blood
Church of the Nativity
Prince of Peace
Resurrection (there are two of these in the archdiocese)
Sacred Heart (there are two of these in the archdiocese)
Shrine of the Sacred Heart
Transfiguration
All of these are named after one or more of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, or after some aspect of Jesus’ life or mission.
Next myth.
sitetest
Oh sure, bring FACTS into this!
"But dude, I REALLY hate the Catholic Church. Truth is not the issue."
I also don’t deny (as you do) that Peter and the Apostles where given the authority to loose and bind (Jesus: “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”). Through Sacred Scripture (and other documents btw) I know that they used that authority to establish Sunday as the day of worship. Any Christian not fallen into the heresy of BIBLIOLITRY recognizes the authority given Peter and the Apostles to loose and bind.
117 posted on April 12, 2008 11:00:36 AM MDT by big'ol_freeper
To do so would be blasphemy against the Holy Spirit ( see Matthew 12:31 ) Binding and loosing has nothing to do with overturning the Holy Word of Elohim. This is the Decree from the first Pontiff of the Roman church to all the world. Emperor Constantine, Emperor of the Roman Empire He had issued an Edict making Sunday the day of rest In 321 CE, while a Pagan sun-worshiper, the Emperor Constantine
They ruled: "Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday, but shall work on that day."
I do not believe that any man or group of men have the right
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
to overturn the direct commands of Elohim.
declared that Sunday was to be a day of rest throughout the Roman Empire: "On the venerable day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest,
Council of Laodicea circa 364 CE ordered that religious observances were
and let all workshops be closed. In the country however persons engaged in agriculture
may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits because it often happens that another day
is not suitable for gain-sowing or vine planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment
for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost."
to be conducted on Sunday, not Saturday. Sunday became the new Sabbath.
******************
It is the opinion of Catholics that Protestantism is a mistake. Do you accept that as well?
The first pontiff of the Catholic Church was Peter. Constantine was never Pope.
Christians were worshiping on Sunday well before Constantine. In fact we know that from the New Testament and from other documents, that are not part of the canon of Sacred Scripture, that the very first generation of Christians worshiped on Sunday.
I am sorry that you desecrate Our Lord Jesus Christ by denying His Divine Nature and authority over His Church. Scripture does not bind God. Jesus’ sacrifice created a New Covenant and authority to loose and bind (are you intellectual enough to even understand what that means?) was given to Peter and the Apostles to establish His Church, which they did, to include Sunday worship. You can protest all you want, but you are wrong and can’t refute that the first Christians DID worship on Sunday...it is irrefutable.
I believe the council of Ephesus in 431 AD also played a major role, there Mary was proclaimed the Theotokos. Instead of translating the term "God-bearer" it was popular to translate it "Mother of God".
Also, the Isis cult was very popular throughout the Roman Empire at this time. The big difference with Mary being the "perpetual virginity". Isis was supposedly very devoted to her child, but she was married to her brother. So it was already part of the culture to have a mother figure devoted to the baby god. Mary being "Mother of God" makes becoming RC all that much more acceptable to the general populace.
The mythology surrounding Mary was present though in the 2nd century. The "Protoevangelium of James" was quickly identified as a forgery and a great many of the claims surrounding Mary that we argue about are found in it. So there was some interest concerning her from very early on.
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.