Again, I'll reiterate the point that even Catholic apologists agree to...that unlike your Acts 19 reference where actual face cloths or aprons that touched Paul's skin were relished, no one can guarantee that the relics in question are indeed even qualifiable as such.
Interesting coffee table discussion pieces? (Yes)
Potential shelf-liners for museums? (Yes)
Integrated decor for historical churches? (Yes)
Tourist fodder to keep the turnstyles goin'? (Yes)
But perhaps nothing more but junk relics? (Even you & other Catholic apologists have to say "Yes" to that, too)
I don't see the jump you make to everyone being a miracle - Scripture speaks for itself here.
My point is healing--what we might call "re-creation" can be miraculous, right? Well, "creation" is likewise miraculous. So just as the Acts 19 items could be deemed "relics;" well, so could my dead body.
Or let's say I had a miraculous healing of my arm...does that mean that when I die, folks should cut it off & haul it around Catholic churches as a real God-touched "relic?"...You see there's no consistency...At least a doctor could provide a "Note of Authenticity" that I was indeed miraculously or unexplainably healed...unlike such "notes of authenticity" RE: most Catholic relics
I see only two posts when I check this link, a question regarding "Mary worship" and an answer. There are some issues in that post (which doesn't appear at the link), so if you could double-check where you got it from, I'd like to read the whole thread and make sense of it.
Sorry, wrong URL (but right Web site...it was a triplet of three Q&As) http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=187504
First, no one is required to believe in any particular Marian appearance. They are private revelations, and do not hold the same rank as Scripture or Tradition. However, I think if you look at the messages of any of the RECOGNIZED (cannot stress that enough) apparitions, you will find they all point to Christ. As such, I don't see a problem teaching or discussing them.
OK, this is what I was afraid would start happening in our dialogue--that the discussion would move into the general discussion arena of the point I was making instead of staying on the relevance of why I even went in this direction. Let's get back to my original point, which was, that some Catholics teach the doctrine of Marian apparitions, and some leaders don't.
With the way you answered above, you actually confirmed my original point! Look again at how you answered, and I'll comment this time point by point: First, no one is required to believe in any particular Marian appearance.
First of all, if this is a true authoritative Catholic teaching, ya wanna tell me how many other authoritative Catholic teachings can be embraced take-it-or-leave-it cafeteria style like this teaching?
If it's not a standard authoritative Catholic teaching--which seems to be what you say when you said: They are private revelations, and do not hold the same rank as Scripture or Tradition...As such, I don't see a problem teaching or discussing them. ... THEN my point is made! Then as I said, since this is not a Scriptural-based Catholic teaching or doctrine, nor is it a tradition-based Catholic teaching or doctrine, but as you say, some folks still teach it, then why would it surprise you that some Catholics hold to this Catholic teaching as doctrine?...(because they're taught it) and others don't? (because they don't see it as either Scriptural or tradition-based)
Finally, I said: Then what’s it doing in the Catholic catechism? "The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship." (footnote is Paul VI, MC 56) http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p6.htm#II
And you responded: Devotion is intrinsic to worship - they are not one and the same. Worship is for God alone. Also from Mirialis Cultus, "This devotion takes into account the part she played at decisive moments in the history of the salvation... (etc.)
Once again, you've moved away from my original point.
Let's say I am an adult or teen catecuman [spelling?] in the Catholic church. I come across the above reference, and I say, "Oh, my worship is 'intrinsified' [not sure if it's a word] via my devotion to the Blessed Virgin." I quickly scan the reference for some reference to God or Jesus Christ as the object of worship (as you switched gears to), but can't find it. Oh sure, upon further search, I find worshipping God and Christ elsewhere in the catechism...but seeing the concept "devoted...worship...to the Blessed Virgin" would clearly lift this mortal object into the worship category "hall of fame," I begin my genesis of worshipping Mary, being devoted to Mary, honoring Mary, and when folks compare this to how I treat Jesus...no real distinction can be made!
So...my point? Folks who read the references in the Catholic catechism and elsewhere believe they are being taught to worship Mary, and do so, and why wouldn't they if the word "worship" is attached to her in multiple places & she is prayed to all the time?
But do such Catholics represent Catholicism in its entirety? (No way). All you have to do is do a google search on "worshipping Mary" or Mariology or similar searches and it's crammed with Catholics doing cartwheels to explain, "We don't worship Mary. We honor her. We are devoted to her. She is our intercessor, etc. etc. etc." And some of these are prominent Catholic priests, leaders, authors & apologists! Now do I discount what they say? (No) If they say they don't worship Mary, I'll take their word for it.
But if I come back to them & say, "You know, Catholic teaching does teach about worshipping Mary...even if you and others interpret that differently, it's still there."
So don't you see? It's frankly at the very least unclear to Catholic grassroots & Catholic leaders. Based on the teachings they've heard/seen, worshipping & praying to Mary is A-OK. Based on the teachings other Catholics have heard/seen, well "worship" in the contemporary sense goes too far.
But my point is made. You've got two camps. And the reason behind the "two camps" can't be laid at the feet of the followers. (It's because the leaders & teachers haven't clarified it one way or the other...and both sides are elaborated).
Re: Relics
You're right - the relics may be junk. I never said they definitely were good. However, Acts 19 does demonstrate that REAL relics may be miraculous through faith in God. The Church teaches (here's the doctrine) that it is okay to do so - clearly, it isn't required. So, yes, you will find some people venerating relics, and some not, but the authoritative teaching of the Church is that okay to do so, within guidelines set by the local hierarchy (see CCC 1674-1676). Regarding the "creation as a miracle" reasoning - I agree life itself is a miracle and a gift from a loving God, but normally when we speak about "miracles" it is something that supercedes the law of nature. Jesus raising Lazarus was a miracle, the birth of John the Baptist wasn't.
Re: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=187504
If you double-check your source, it was a Catholic poster posting an Anti-Catholic email that you quoted - he was seeking help in refuting the lies present. Check Fr. Serpa's answer if you are curious.
Re: Marian Apparitions
Again, we're differing on what "doctrine" is, I think. The doctrine of the Church is that certain apparitions are okay to be believed - again, like relics, there is no requirement to do so. So, yes, different people will focus on different things.
If this post confirms your original point you were trying to make, awesome! We've come to agreement - however, do you recognize the difficulty I had when you were saying there were many different Catholic doctrines? Some doctrine (official teaching) is that you get to choose whether that is an aspect of your faith and worship (relics, Marian Apparitions) - others, you don't (transubstantiation, the Trinity). We're not as authoritarian as people make us out to be. If the law in the US is that you have to be 21 to drink, you aren't required to drink at 21 - you get the option!
Let's say I am an adult or teen catecuman [spelling?] in the Catholic church. I come across the above reference, and I say, "Oh, my worship is 'intrinsified' [not sure if it's a word] via my devotion to the Blessed Virgin." I quickly scan the reference for some reference to God or Jesus Christ as the object of worship (as you switched gears to), but can't find it. Oh sure, upon further search, I find worshipping God and Christ elsewhere in the catechism...but seeing the concept "devoted...worship...to the Blessed Virgin" would clearly lift this mortal object into the worship category "hall of fame," I begin my genesis of worshipping Mary, being devoted to Mary, honoring Mary, and when folks compare this to how I treat Jesus...no real distinction can be made!
Ok, you pulled the first line of CCC 971, and then expound upon it. Let's examine the next two sentences in the same paragraph. "The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs.... This very special devotion ... differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration."" Clearly, any catechumen reading the whole paragraph will see that the devotion is meant to DIFFER from the adoration. If the catechumen gets the idea that he is meant to worship Mary from reading the whole thing, not only is he twisting the words, but his catechist is doing a terrible job.
But if I come back to them & say, "You know, Catholic teaching does teach about worshipping Mary...even if you and others interpret that differently, it's still there."
I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find many Catholics who you sit down with and really discuss things who say they worship Mary in the same way they worship God. Now, they may use the word "worship" flippantly in passing, but I doubt that is what they truly believe. I know a lot of poorly catechised Catholics who at least know they don't worship Mary.
So don't you see? It's frankly at the very least unclear to Catholic grassroots & Catholic leaders. Based on the teachings they've heard/seen, worshipping & praying to Mary is A-OK. Based on the teachings other Catholics have heard/seen, well "worship" in the contemporary sense goes too far.
But my point is made. You've got two camps. And the reason behind the "two camps" can't be laid at the feet of the followers. (It's because the leaders & teachers haven't clarified it one way or the other...and both sides are elaborated).
Even assuming there are Catholics who truly worship Mary (again, I'd be shocked to hear an actual discussion (not just in passing) with a Catholic who admits they worship Mary), I lay the fault somewhat at the feet of the Church. However, just because the Church does a poor job teaching doesn't mean its teachings are wrong. If your son graduates from 8th grade thinking the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, his teacher did a poor job instructing him. However, the poor instruction has no bearing on the actual truth underlying the lesson - I'm pretty sure it was the Italians ;-)