The Worship of Mary? (An Observation)

Some of you will remember my recent decision to become a Catholic. I suppose I should be surprised it ended getting derailed into a 'Catholic vs. Protestant' thread, but after going further into the Religion forum, I suppose it's par for the course.

There seems to be a bit of big issue concerning Mary. I wanted to share an observation of sorts.

Now...although I was formerly going by 'Sola Scriptura', my father was born and raised Catholic, so I do have some knowledge of Catholic doctrine (not enough, at any rate...so consider all observations thusly).

Mary as a 'co-redeemer', Mary as someone to intercede for us with regards to our Lord Jesus.

Now...I can definitely see how this would raise some hairs. After all, Jesus Himself said that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that none come to the Father but through Him. I completely agree.

I do notice a bit of a fundamental difference in perception though. Call it a conflict of POV. Do Catholics worship Mary (as I've seen a number of Protestants proclaim), or do they rather respect and venerate her (as I've seen Catholics claim)? Note that it's one thing to regard someone with reverence; I revere President Bush as the noted leader of the free world. I revere my father. I revere Dr. O'Neil, a humorous and brilliant math teacher at my university. It's an act of respect.

No. Big difference between respecting/revering and worshiping. At least, that's how I view it.

I suppose it's also a foible to ask Mary to pray for us, on our behalf...but don't we tend to also ask other people to pray for us? Doesn't President Bush ask for people to pray for him? Don't we ask our family members to pray for us for protection while on a trip? I don't see quite a big disconnect between that and asking Mary to help pray for our wellbeing.

There is some question to the fact that she is physically dead. Though it stands to consider that she is still alive, in Heaven. Is it not common practice to not just regard our physical life, but to regard most of all our spirit, our soul? That which survives the flesh before ascending to Heaven or descending to Hell after God's judgment?

I don't think it's that big of a deal. I could change my mind after reading more in-depth, but I don't think that the Catholic Church has decreed via papal infallibility that Mary is to be placed on a higher pedestal than Jesus, or even to be His equal.

Do I think she is someone to be revered and respected? Certainly. She is the mother of Jesus, who knew Him for His entire life as a human on Earth. Given that He respected her (for He came to fulfill the old laws; including 'Honor Thy Father and Mother'), I don't think it's unnatural for other humans to do the same. I think it's somewhat presumptuous to regard it on the same level as idolatry or supplanting Jesus with another.

In a way, I guess the way Catholics treat Mary and the saints is similar to how the masses treated the Apostles following the Resurrection and Jesus's Ascension: people who are considered holy in that they have a deep connection with Jesus and His Word, His Teachings, His Message. As the Apostles spread the Good News and are remembered and revered to this day for their work, so to are the works of those sainted remembered and revered. Likewise with Mary. Are the Apostles worshiped? No. That's how it holds with Mary and the saints.

At least, that's how my initial thoughts on the subject are. I'll have to do more reading.

AMEN, Forest Keeper!

What a splendid, God-glorifying, Biblically-sound post.

Isa 8:19-20 : 19 When men tell you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?

20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn. (No light unless according to God's word.)

Great find from Isaiah. Not only does it testify to the truth of God's word and will, but it denounces prayers to "the dead on behalf of the living."

The believing Jews of the OT knew idolatry when they saw it.

To your excellent offering of Scripture, we can add...

"Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes.
And ye shall teach them your children, speaking of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
And thou shalt write them upon the door posts of thine house, and upon thy gates:
That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, in the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers to give them, as the days of heaven upon the earth." -- Deuteronomy 11:18-21

"Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD's house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD's house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word" -- Jeremiah 26:2

"Take thee a roll of a book, and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto thee against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations, from the day I spake unto thee, from the days of Josiah, even unto this day." -- Jeremiah 36:2

"Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away." -- Luke 21:33

"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" -- John 5:46-47

And how do men understand the words of God? By the indwelling Holy Spirit who quickens our dead hearts and renews our rebellious minds to know the truth and believe.

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." -- John 6:63

"But the comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." -- John 14:26

[While I know it to be all the rage among revisionists (that being to suggest light populations prior to current history), I will disagree. As an instance, Europe suffered a tremendous hit from the Black Plague, but sustained that hit of (c.)25m in a single year. As another indicator, single battles between armies have logged casualties into the tens of thousands throughout history, and the population has sustained them.]

This is TOTALLY FALSE. The Black Death first hit Europe in Italy in 1347, it then spread across Europe over a period of about two years. Then there were recurrences about every ten years for the next century.

I will accept your two year scenario, though opinions vary (1-5 years), but I will stand firmly upon the 25m figure as being a fully reasonable number. It was not my intention to describe the entirety of the black plague, but only the "Great Mortality" portion, the first instance thereof upon Europe. I am fully aware that it reoccurred, in fact, all the way into, and through, the 1800's.

But you miss my point. I purposfully used two examples (the plague and large death tolls from battles) to show that historical populations were very capable, and not the light, aggrarian populations historical revisionists favor. For some reason, thereafter you limit your reply to the black plague and to the 14th century. We were speaking of roughly 500AD-1800AD, and that is what I was referring to.

[Something very profound lowered the population and prosperity of Medieval Europe (and only Medieval Europe) in a particular and sustained fashion. I would submit that the force responsible for that was in fact the iron fist of the Holy Roman Empire-]

Your grasp of history is quite flawed. For not only did the Black Death hit Europe in the 14th Century, it came on the tail of a continent-wide famine which had also wreaked havoc. On top of this, the entire century was also consumed by the Hundred Years War which was a NON-RELIGIOUS war between England and France.

Actually, it was not so much a famine as it was a matter of overpopulation, and it is not really the damage that is the indicator, but the recovery time- This wikipedia article on the Black Death touches on what I mean:

Europe had been overpopulated before the plague, and a reduction of 30% to 50% of the population could have resulted in higher wages and more available land and food for peasants because of less competition for resources. However, for reasons that are still debated, population levels declined after the Black Death's first outbreak until around 1420 and did not begin to rise again until 1470, so the initial Black Death event on its own does not entirely provide a satisfactory explanation to this extended period of decline in prosperity. See Medieval demography for a more complete treatment of this issue and current theories on why improvements in living standards took longer to evolve.

In fact, many of the midwives after the black death were tried as witches for prescribing birth control methods... Both the state and the Church being interested in boosting population to resume the filling of their coffers.

Additionally, the Holy Roman Empire was no more a Catholic state than, Spain, France or England. It WAS NOT under the control of the Church in any more than a nominal sense and it ONLY comprised central Europe.

The Pope owned Europe from 500AD to 1800AD... It is my mistake to refer to that time as the Holy Roman Empire to differentiate it from the time prior, when the emperors owned Europe. I more properly should have said the "Western Roman Empire". As to the Holy Roman Empire proper, don't look at me, it was your Pope that crowned them to give them claim. That is at least an endorsement.

[And it isn't even the major events that I would point to- Consider this, If you would: Without any crusade or inquisition, to reach a death toll of 100m across 1260 yrs requires under 8,000 deaths a year in the whole of Europe- A number easy to surpass in a morality based system founded in fear and avarice, especially when one considers the bare fact that a sentence of mere imprisonment nearly guaranteed a death by starvation or disease (not considered in the death tolls btw).]

What you fail to recognize is that your entire thesis is predicated upon a theory of something that NEVER HAPPENED.

What precisely are you claiming "never happened"?

The population of Europe was incrementally rising (sometimes rising moreso than others) through history. It plummetted during the 14th Century due to factors listed above. It stabilized in the late 15th and early 16th Centuries and has been rising ever since. Population increases are nearly always economic, as Europe moved away from the feudal system and the middle class grew, the population followed.

Nonetheless, Europe lagged in standard of living and population (recovery) compared to where it could, and should have been- Look at America in the same light- from 1776 to 1876, a mere century, plagued with war with Britain, France, and indians, still America prospered and grew exponentially to populate the eastern seaboard, the inland eastern half of the United States, and a pretty good stab at the West. Now, I will grant you, a large portion of those coming to popuate America, even in the 1500's and 1600's found reason to flee the wonderful economy and religious conditions you describe, but still...

One thing you seem to conveniently overlook is the FACT that THERE WAS NO RELIGIOUS TURMOIL to speak of in Europe (the Great Schism really didn't affect most of Europe) prior to the Reformation. Hus and Wycliffe were ISOLATED events. There was no TV or internet, the average person had no idea they were even happening. The simple fact is that the average person in Europe prior to the 16th Century had no qualms with the Church whatsoever.

Sooo... You would deny the slaughter of the Cathars? What of the Arians? Yes the Heruli, Visigoths, and Ostrogoths were destroyed just prior to this timeframe (so I can't count them), but Arianism was a problem well into the 8th century. What of the Pelagian heresy among the Celts (and Brittany, and parts of coastal France)? And certainly, what of the Jews, many of whom were slaughtered during the Black Plague, accused of poisoning wells... What of the "evangelizing" of the Anglo-Saxons, the Picts, and other Pagan tribes... and not to forget the mighty Vikings. What of the persecution of witches? I know everyone loves to make that a Protestant thing, but it isn't Catholics invented it, and the persecution of witches was far more prevalent in continental Europe than in England or America.

And you never answered my question... Why wold one discount Llorente's numbers regarding the Spanish Inquisition, and if they are not true, where are all of the Spanish Jews from the Iberian Penninsula? Where did they go?

[I would hold the RCC to task for much in WWII.]

The greatest tragedy the Church faced during WWII was the fact that so much of Germany was Lutheran and their were't enough Christians with true convictions there (the Lutheran minister Dietrich Bonhoeffer being a MAJOR exception) to stand up to evil.

The RCC not only assisted evil in WWII, it participated in it, and helped it to escape.

As for your nonsense of what was done in the Americas, you might recall that the English colonists were nearly ALL Protestants and they killed the Indians and brought slavery to America.

Again, all of which the Protestants do not deny.

[Where does the Bible say that the Gospels were transcribed directly from God?] I didn’t (yet) say that it was

Yet? Scriptural proof please when you do.

Why? I thought RCC didn't require scriptural reference... Reason should suffice ;)

[But you didn’t answer my question:

Which books contain neither prophecy, nor revelation of prophecy, nor direct instruction from God Almighty, as written down by His declared agents, with the direct intention of preserving those words for posterity?]

Do you mind if I take these one at a time?

No.

Prophecy: not aware of any books which do not prophesy.

Good. We agree.

Direct instruction from God Almighty: not aware of any books which do not contain instruction.

Good. Again, we agree.

Am not aware that the Gospel writers are declared agents. Can you show me Scripturally?

I need not show you in Scripture that they were hand picked of Christ, that they were filled with the Spirit of God as evidenced by their miracles, and that they spoke with the authority of God (through Christ), lest we are all worshiping in vain...

Who was the declared agent of Genesis, Exodus, etc.

I am not sure I know them all myself... the first five, the Pentateuch, were written by Moses, of course. Joshua, Judges (maybe Ruth), Samuel, and the Kings were written by Samuel. The Chronicles were written by Ezra, I believe. The named prophets were written by themselves or their agents (Jeremiah was likely penned by his scribe Baruch, as well as Lamentations). Psalms is of David, Songs and Proverbs are of Solomon...

The realization that these should be written down for posterity did not occur for quite a while since the Jewish tradition of oral instruction existed for thousands of years and the fledgling Church thought that Christ’s return was just around the corner.

I will challenge you here. There was a strong tradition of memorization, but there was also a written heritage, which cannot be denied. Please read the following and offer what comments you might:

InPlainSite.org: Old Testament Claims

This page also comes pretty close to fleshing out my argument on the subject at hand as well- when the Prophets are talking as God- that is, in the first Person, would that, at least, not be a direct transmission?

***[Where does the Bible say that the Gospels were transcribed directly from God?] I didn’t (yet) say that it was
Yet? Scriptural proof please when you do.

Why? I thought RCC didn’t require scriptural reference... Reason should suffice ;) ***

It is unreasonable to come to that conclusion. It is not Scripturally sound, nor does it come from the Church. It therefore comes from somewhere or someone else. If it is not of God nor of God’s Church, then one must presume that it comes from the brightest angel.

***Am not aware that the Gospel writers are declared agents. Can you show me Scripturally?

Where does Luke identify himself as an agent of God?

Luke
Chapter 1
1
Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us,
2
just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us,
3
I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus,

Sounds to me like Luke is saying that he is imitating some of the many who were compiling narratives in a letter to his buddy Theophilus. Where does Luke identify himself as an agent of God? What miracles did Luke perform? Where do you get this stuff?

***Who was the declared agent of Genesis, Exodus, etc.

Maybe, likely, possibly, I believe. The only thing that we know is that they were declared Scripture by the Church. And not by any rabble of malcontents intent on seizing power for themselves by allying with power-hungry nobles.

***The realization that these should be written down for posterity did not occur for quite a while since the Jewish tradition of oral instruction existed for thousands of years and the fledgling Church thought that Christ’s return was just around the corner.

I will challenge you here. There was a strong tradition of memorization, but there was also a written heritage, which cannot be denied. Please read the following and offer what comments you might: ***

Challenge away. Jeremiah
Chapter 36
1
In the fourth year of Jehoiakim, son of Josiah, king of Judah, this word came to Jeremiah from the LORD:
2
Take a scroll and write on it all the words I have spoken to you against Israel, Judah, and all the nations, from the day I first spoke to you, in the days of Josiah, until today.
3
Perhaps, when the house of Judah hears all the evil I have in mind to do to them, they will turn back each from his evil way, so that I may forgive their wickedness and their sin.
4
So Jeremiah called Baruch, son of Neriah, who wrote down on a scroll, as Jeremiah dictated, all the words which the LORD had spoken to him.

Jeremiah was the one dictating, not God. He was telling Baruch what he remembered God saying to him. A witness, as it were.

Jeremiah
Chapter 2
1
1 This word of the LORD came to me:
2
2 Go, cry out this message for Jerusalem to hear! I remember the devotion of your youth, how you loved me as a bride, Following me in the desert, in a land unsown.
3
3 Sacred to the LORD was Israel, the first fruits of his harvest; Should anyone presume to partake of them, evil would befall him, says the LORD.

The Lord talked to Jeremiah and he passed it along, like a subordinate messenger to the King. No support here for robot transcription.

Exodus
Chapter 35
1
Moses assembled the whole Israelite community and said to them, “This is what the LORD has commanded to be done.
2
On six days work may be done, but the seventh day shall be sacred to you as the sabbath of complete rest to the LORD. Anyone who does work on that day shall be put to death.
3
You shall not even light a fire in any of your dwellings on the sabbath day.” No support here either. You’ll have to do better than this. No sale.

***This page also comes pretty close to fleshing out my argument on the subject at hand as well- when the Prophets are talking as God- that is, in the first Person, would that, at least, not be a direct transmission?***

Do you have an example? Where is the direct transmission?

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.