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.

Alamo-Girl, you are a published author, and so I KNOW that you are no slouch. But I have to chime in on your post one; I've been keeping my finger on the pulse of this thread and it appears to me that hay is being made where no hay can be made. A serious hermeneutical error is being made concerning Rev 3:9 with the stipulation that it is some sort of proof text pertaining to the premis of a categorical syllogism. One can view the syllogism as valid but unsound (based on the truth of the premis), or irrational (based on the logic employed to establish the conclusion). It is my argument that the truth value to that which Rev 3:9 entails to your argument is not just immaterial but outright irrelevent if one doesn't understand what the truth value means in the first place; and so the sylogism itself is irrational.

The Wiki entry for hermeneutics:

Hermeneutics is broadly used in contemporary philosophy to denote the study of theories and methods of the interpretation of all texts and systems of meaning. The concept of "text" is here extended beyond written documents to any number of objects subject to interpretation, such as experiences. A hermeneutic is also defined as a specific system or method for interpretation, or a specific theory of interpretation. However, the contemporary philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer has said that hermeneutics is an approach rather than a method and, further, that the Hermeneutic circle is the central problem of interpretation.
Essentially, hermeneutics involves cultivating the ability to understand things from somebody else's point of view, and to appreciate the cultural and social forces that may have influenced their outlook. Hermeneutics is the process of applying this understanding to interpreting the meaning of written texts and symbolic artifacts (such as art or sculpture or architecture), which may be either historic or contemporary.

In his book, Hermeneutics, writer Henry A. Virkler provides this basic history and definition:

> The word hermeneutics is said to have had its origin in the name Hermes, the Greek god who served as messenger for the gods, transmitting and interpreting their communications to their fortunate, or often unfortunate, recipients.
In its technical meaning, hermeneutics is often defined as the science and art of biblical interpretation. Hermeneutics is considered a science because it has rules and these rules can be classified into an orderly system. It is considered an art because communication is flexible, and therefore a mechanical and rigid application of rules will sometimes distort the true meaning of a communication.¹ To be a good interpreter one must learn the rules of hermeneutics as well as the art of applying those rules.
Hermeneutical theory is sometimes divided into two sub-categories--general and special hermeneutics. General hermeneutics is the study of those rules that govern interpretation of the entire biblical text. It includes topics of historical-cultural, contextual, lexical-syntactical, and theological analyses. Special hermeneutics is the study of those rules that apply to specific genres, such as parables, allegories, types, and prophecy."²

Theological hermeneutics as traditional Christian Biblical exegesis is a form of theological hermeneutics, especially within the mainstream, self-declared 'orthodox' Protestant tradition, considers Christian Biblical hermeneutics in the tradition of explication of the text, or exegesis, to deal with various principles that can be applied to the study of Scripture. If it is axiomatic that the canon of Scripture must be an organic whole, rather than an accumulation of disparate individual texts written and edited in the course of history, then any interpretation that contradicts any other part of scripture is not considered to be sound. Thus Biblical hermeneutics differs from hermeneutics as generally understood. Within such traditional Protestant theology, there are a variety of interpretive formulae. I'm not going to mention them but I adhere to their application.

Rev 3:9 is part that of a larger passage. The context of the larger passage can be established in Rev 1:20. John is being charged to address seven contemporary churches of his time; specifically John addresses the church at Philadelphia in Rev 3:7. That should illuminate the object of the verse, i.e., "thy feet". To whom does "thy feet" belong and what does "worship" entail?

One of the first tenets of hermeneutics is what does the passage (or verse) actually say? If the translation that one is interpreting is not quite clear, further investigation is required. There are several methods that can be utilized, i.e.,

Lexical-syntactical
Special literary
Historical/cultural
Contextual method
Theological

In that vein, lets endeavor to examine what Rev 3:9 says. However, in order to apply hermeneutics to the passage we have to agree on an unbiased authority. A.T. Robertson one such authority. Another would be Strong or Vine's; and in a wholly secular forum, Westcott-Hort. Mind you at this point we're NOT interpreting any doctrine, but examining just WHAT the passage actually says. If neither of those authorities are credible in one's mind, then nothing I say will have any merit whatsoever. According to A.T. Robertson:

In Rev 3:9, I give (didô), incorporates late omega form for didômi, but the mi form in Rev 17:13 (didoasin). These Jewish converts are a gift from Christ. For this use of didômi see Act 2:27; 10:40; 14:3. There is ellipse of tinas before ek as in Rev 2:10 (ex humôn) and see Rev 2:9 for "the synagogue of Satan."

Of them which say (tôn legontôn) rendered from ablative plural in apposition with sunagôgês. On the construction of heautous Ioudaious einai see on Rev 2:9 (Ioudaious einai heautous, i.e., the order of words being immaterial).

But do lie (alla pseudontai). Present middle indicative of pseudomai, explanatory positive, addition here to kai ouk eisin of Rev 2:9, in contrast also with ho alêthinos of verse Rev 3:7 and in Johannine style (Jno 8:44; I Jno 1:10; 2:4).

I will make them (poiêsô autous). Future active indicative of poieô, resuming the prophecy after the parenthesis (tôn--pseudontai, which say--but do lie).

To come and worship (hina hêxousin kai proskunêsousin). "That they come and worship" (final clause, like facio ut in Latin, with hina and the future active of hêkô and proskuneô). The English rendered here is from the NT Greek language which is based on Isa 45:14; 60:14 (Hebrew). The Jews expected homage (not worship in the strict sense) from the Gentiles, but it will come to the Christians at last (I Cor 14:24). Later Ignatius (Philad. 6) warns this church against Judaizing Christians, perhaps one result of an influx of Jews.

And to know (kai gnôsin). Continuation of the purpose clause with hina, but with the second aorist active subjunctive rather than the less usual future indicative. See both constructions also with hina in Rev 22:14. Probably a reminiscence of Isa 43:4 in egô êgapêsa se ("I loved thee"), first aorist active indicative.

The salient word appears to be "worship" (Strong's #4352). Strong's Concordances shows:

proskunew proskuneo, i.e., pros-koo-neh'-o is from 4314 and a probable derivative of 2965 (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master's hand); to fawn or crouch to, i.e. (literally or figuratively) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore):--worship.

The promise to Philadelphia is much larger than that earlier to Smyrna (cf Rev 2:9). The promise to Smyrna was that "the synagogue of Satan" should not prevail against the faithful in her: to Philadelphia, however, that she should even win over some of "the synagogue of Satan" to fall on their faces and confess God is in her of a truth. Translate, "(some) of the synagogue." For until Christ shall come, and all Israel then be saved, there is but "a remnant" being gathered out of the Jews "according to the election of grace." This is an instance of how Christ set before her an "open door," some of her greatest adversaries, the Jews, being brought to the obedience of the faith. Their worshipping before her feet expresses the convert's willingness to take the very lowest place in the Church, doing servile honor to those whom once they persecuted, rather than dwell with the ungodly (cf. the Philippian jailer before Paul). And just who was Paul anyways? It would behoove one to read up on what Paul said about himself and how he conducted himself prior to his conversion.

Adam Clarke says of Rev 3:9 that "I will so dispose of matters in the course of my providence, that the Jews shall be obliged to seek unto the Christians for toleration, support, and protection, which they shall be obliged to sue for in the most humble and abject manner."

He goes on further to state:

To know that I have loved thee. That the love which was formerly fixed on the Jews is now removed, and transferred to the Gentiles.

Your useage of Rev 3:9 as some sort of proof text is not just flawed; it is outright doctinally incorrect. God is NOT allowing "worship" of beings (or organizations), because He rejected them; He's compelling them to worship Him in the very organazations they despised, detested, destroyed. All of Scripture MUST remain uncontradicted on any small matter (lest ALL all of it come under suspicion concerning the least). =====================================
Notes:

1. Bernard Ramm. Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 3rd rev. ed., Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, p. 1

2. Henry A. Virkler. Hermeneutics. Baker Books, pg. 15, 16.

Is that a threat?

Other than some RC’s likely whining and wailing, I have no idea what resulted in my banning.

I have not engaged in the slightest blasphemy of Mary.

1. Mary is not God.

2. Blasphemy occurs against God and God alone. Mere humans don’t qualify for the word.

3. I have nothing at all against the authentic Mary.

4. I have a long list of discomfort with the outrageous blasphemies the RC edifice piles on top of Mary with an incredibly horribly over the line list of brazenly untrue hogwash—junk that the authentic Mary is likely outraged about if she’s at all allowed to even know such in her period of rest from such matters.

5. This is an open thread. My understanding of the criteria and standards is that folks tooooo thin-skinned to be comfortable here should go elsewhere.

6. I’ve been quite mild in my postings, today. I’d say, certainly comparatively—exceedingly mild. I realize that some RC’s have an evidently endless capacity and creativity for fabricating silk purses out of hogwallow muck. I shall continue to trust God in such matters.

7. I have no doubt that quite a significant number of RC anatomy sites are well imprinted with the abuse button from their sitting marathons. I don’t find that admirable nor useful . . . nor even wise.

However, feel free to do as you see fit as far as I’m concerned. I have a strong bias that individuals have to make their own choices and bear the consequences.

8. I can’t even IMAGINE what triggered such an outlandish, outrageously inaccurate reply. Fascinating.

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.