The Worship of Mary? (An Observation)

[Ultra Sonic 007]

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.

But do I WORSHIP them?

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.

[MarkBsnr]

***There is only one True God.

Then there’s that dark overlord invented by Jean Cauvin. Amazing how many people gamble their lives on the dark rantings of an autocratic French lawyer.***

Not only that, these folks worship the erroneous KJV, created by an English (Scottish) king who consolidated the Church of England with the monarch as the head; and then carry close to their hearts the Westminster Confession of Faith - proposed, commissioned, bought and paid for by the Government of England.

On this day of liberty from England, you’d figure that at least, the American patriots would question what theology that they are following.

[OLD REGGIE]

(roamer_1) "Paganism sanctified by adoption..."

Not what he said.

The example set by St. Gregory in an age of persecution was impetuously followed when a time of peace succeeded. In the course of the fourth century two movements or developments spread over the face of Christendom, with a rapidity characteristic of the Church; the one ascetic, the other ritual or ceremonial. We are told in various ways by Eusebius [Note 16], that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison [Note 17], are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church. {374}

NEWMAN READER

[OLD REGGIE]

What a strange little legalistic box Calvin has built for you.

Yes, and in your legalistic zeal you have built a system of Canon Law so obscure, contradictory, and complex that an army of "Canon Law Experts" has grown to "interpret" this law. The fact that the "experts" frequently disagree is of little importance. Hah!

Or, was it the Catholic Church which built this system?

[OLD REGGIE]

What possesses a man to ascend to the heights of such hubris?

I dunno. It was a few hundred years (post Constantine) that the system of the Papacy developed. A few hundred more years before the Bishop of Rome had the audacity to claim "Primacy" over other Bishops.

It then became necessary to write a "history" (which has undergone a few changes) to "fill in the blanks".

The short answer is: You'll have to ask your Church. And, don't expect an answer.

[roamer_1]

It’s this post that is in green, with some maroon. Dated today, July 3. M

Hi Mary,

Here's the confusion: That which you are calling green is light gray.

I am often ill, and may neglect replying to a post for several days. Since it takes me so long to reply, I use the light gray to format the idea my FRiend had replied to, for their convenience, as otherwise, they may not remember the context of the conversation. I do this purposefully to make it diminutive, so that it does not distract from my FRiend's comments, which I format in the conventional italic black, with my comment then being in the standard font.

I am sorry you find it difficult to read- I will endeavor to come up with a satisfactory solution.

[OLD REGGIE]

My experience with most of the non denominationals and the Restorationist churchs (those created since 1835) repress history to the extreme and paint a rather rosy view of the faithful (of that sect) being persecuted all the way back to Christ, yet having to remain underground until the Reformation or Restoration or the opening of a large cask of whisky.

Your experience? Just what is that? Are you a scholar experienced in this subject? Have you written any books? What are your qualifications? Credentials please.

Hubris indeed!

[OLD REGGIE]

Who teaches the Assumption as a plan of salvation?

Who teaches that the union of the mother and the son is the plan of salvation?

Catechism Of The Catholic Church

964 Mary's role in the Church is inseparable from her union with Christ and flows directly from it. "This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ's virginal conception up to his death"; it is made manifest above all at the hour of his Passion:

Thus the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross. There she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, joining herself with his sacrifice in her mother's heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim, born of her: to be given, by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross, as a mother to his disciple, with these words: "Woman, behold your son."

Who teaches that Mary is directly involved in the "ressurection" of other Christians?

966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death." The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:

In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.

[OLD REGGIE]

Try to respond without the personal attack, if you can.

Thin skinned?

Karol Wojtyla, Pope John Paul II, has been a devoted son of Mary ever since early youth, when he worshiped at her shrines in the neighborhood of his native Wadowice. During the Nazi occupation of Poland, as a chaplet leader in a "living rosary," he joined in prayers to Mary for peace and liberation. He also studied the works of St. Louis Grignion de Montfort (1673-1716), from whom he takes his motto as pope, totus tuus ("I am wholly yours").

It would be a mistake to think of the pope's attachment to Mary as the fruit of sentimentality. He emphatically denies that Marian teaching is a devotional supplement to a system of doctrine that would be complete without her. On the contrary, he holds, she occupies an indispensable place in the whole plan of salvation. "The mystery of Mary," writes the pope, "is a revealed truth which imposes itself on the intellect of believers and requires of those in the Church who have the task of studying and teaching a method of doctrinal reflection no less rigorous than that used in all theology."

The pope's understanding of Mary

When the Pope speaks he teaches!

[roamer_1]

You will also notice that the FACT that Europe also faced famine and war in the 14th and 15th centuries was entirely ignored and this had substantial effects on the population.

It was *not* ignored.

Additionally, the comparison to America’s growth is our first century as a free republic, this is also farcical. America had the benefit of IMMIGRATION and an ENTIRE CONTINENT FOR EXPANSION, Europe had none of these.

And every yard of that land had to be fought for- With the British and the French, and the indians... You do remember all those indians we Protestants had to slaughter... you can't have it both ways.

Finally, there is still the FACT that roamer_1’s original statement was that the Catholic Church was responsible for 100 MILLION deaths and we have yet to see a modicum of proof for that, just innuendo based upon untruths.

It is pretty hard to get traction when you won't even admit the slaughter of the Cathari and the Waldenses, and the like, all very well documented historical fact. If you can't admit to these, there is no sense in continuing, as I know of no way to cure such denial.

Here is the best tally I have found online- He vigorously and easily defends a European death toll of 58 million in historical battles, crusades, and inquisitions alone, with speculation quite like mine showing figures over 100million in Europe, and then introduces the New Word and the Middle East and Northern Africa as well. It is well attributed.

"Estimates of the Number Killed by the Papacy in the Middle Ages" by David A. Plaisted

[wmfights]

God Bless you for your Christian witness.

I hope you have a blessed 4th of July.

[OLD REGGIE]

and yet that is what we have...a myriad of religions, all of them claiming that they are the ones led by the Holy Spirit...

I would take issue with any Church claiming they were the only ones led by the Holy Spirit. Have you seen such?

I have seen a claim that ""it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff..."

Do you agree?

[wmfights]

It’s not how you pray, it’s to whom you pray. Jesus? Mary?

Wow.

That is so spot on I had to post to you.

AMEN!

[roamer_1]

The statement was to the effect that the average person didn’t know much about anything more than 10 miles from his birthplace (and gravestone) and didn’t travel any further in the first millennium. How would the serf in Nottingham know anything about the Cathars?

This sort of arrogance is both institutional and profound, and is one of the things sparking my research into Europe. While it is certainly true that folks of this age could not simply pick up a telephone, don't think that there wasn't communication, especially along trading routes. Something as large scale as the slaughter of the Cathari would be all over the continent in a matter of weeks...

[roamer_1]

Pretty arrogant aren’t you? The Lord’s Day was specified by the Church of Christ. Are you saying that you are above the Church?

No. I am not arrogant. I am saying that the church had no such authority to change the Sabbath day, making God's Word null by way of their tradition.

[wmfights]

I am often ill, and may neglect replying to a post for several days. Since it takes me so long to reply, I use the light gray to format the idea my FRiend had replied to, for their convenience, as otherwise, they may not remember the context of the conversation.

I am sorry to hear you are ill. I will pray that all goes well for you. I do enjoy your posts very much.

[roamer_1]

Do you raise your hands in worship?

Well... yes... but since I am a Presbyterian, never above the shoulders... :D

[roamer_1]

I am sorry to hear you are ill. I will pray that all goes well for you. I do enjoy your posts very much.

Long-term Lyme damage... Fibro/Arthritis/Menengitis kind of thing... Pretty used to it by now... Thanks for your concern. I enjoy reading you as well.

[wmfights]

Long-term Lyme damage...

It's more chronic than anything isn't it? The Menegitis is affecting the outer layer of the brain? I hope it's not to painful and will keep you in prayer my Brother in Christ.

I enjoy reading you as well.

That is kind of you to say.

[roamer_1]

(roamer_1) "Paganism sanctified by adoption..."

(Petronski)Not what he said.

[OLD REGGIE provides link]

Sure looks like what he says to me.

[roamer_1]

It's more chronic than anything isn't it?

Yes, in fact, it isn't even properly identified as Lyme, as the tests available tend (40%+) toward false negatives. They are treating it as Lyme by the nature of the symptoms. I had the bullseye rash twice in my life, late teens and early twenties... I am 47 now, and never showed a sign until 7 years ago, then it just destroyed me.

The Menegitis is affecting the outer layer of the brain?

No, it is spinal, or at least mostly so... or symptomatically so... They thought it was spinal menengitis as an overall diagnosis at first. Tap doesn't show any bugs though...

will keep you in prayer my Brother in Christ.

Thank you for your kindness.