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.

[OLD REGGIE]

Keep me on your list. I do find your posts to be most amusing.

If you mean "ping" list, I'm sorry, I dont have one.

If you mean those who have no idea what "Authentic Magisterium" means and have no idea where to find the OFFICIAL definition, you are on it.

[Mad Dawg]

I guess you know how to play the "nasty" game.

[OLD REGGIE]

HOGWASH! There is an unbroken succession of popes, beginning with St. Peter. You can look it up. Of course, if protestants don't allow for sacred tradition, they'll miss a bit of church history;

Of course you would have to accept the early list, the list based on imagination for the "early" Popes, the gaps of up to 4 years without a Pope, and the three Popes at the same time (but one of them must have been the real Pope). Look it up.

[Petronski]

If you mean those who have no idea what "Authentic Magisterium" means and have no idea where to find the OFFICIAL definition, you are on it.

Trisham is NOT on it. You describe a list of the willfully ignorant. Trisham is not willfully ignorant.

[OLD REGGIE]

That would be incorrect. Some Jews used it and some did not, depending on where they lived. The area where Jesus grew up used scripture that did include Tobit.

There is only one Hebrew Canon. It does not include the so-called Apocrypha.

The fact that some Hellenized Jews were not Orthodox is meaningless.

[Petronski]

If you mean those who have no idea what "Authentic Magisterium" means and have no idea where to find the OFFICIAL definition, you are on it.

Judith Anne is NOT on it. You describe a list of the willfully ignorant. Judith Anne is not willfully ignorant either.

[big'ol_freeper]

Tell that to Jesus who was a Hellenized Jew.

[Petronski]

The Deutercanonicals were removed around AD 70.

[OLD REGGIE]

Well of course Protestants have tradition. They even have cleverly designed fables! Of which one is that the so-called “Roman Church” was founded at Nicea. Since they are not united in organization or in Doctrine, hatred of Catholicism serves a purpose of giving them a common enemy and bolsters the rest of their attempts at theological systems.

This is truly pitiful from one who makes a pretense of fair mindedness.

[restornu]

Considering the Catholic History of the church they have survived a lot of wounds down through the ages and still are bigger than any Protestant movement and much more organized.

I have run into many of the Catholic faith those who are practicing it have the Spirit of the Lord with them.

I can not in all honesty say I observed that in other mainstream faiths.

I know there are exceptions to the rule but seeing the behavior of the FR fanatic are so abusive makes it very hard to view this objectively.

The perfidious wondering roughs agenda is too keep visitors or lurker at the gate filled with bias hype that what ever you stand for has alreday been tainted.

It called everyone should have a voice!

even if their faith is to practiced scorch earth

[Petronski]

This is truly pitiful from one who makes a pretense of fair mindedness.

You were wise not to deny it.

[Philo-Junius]

For the record:

Quoting English translations of scripture, even such a melodious work as the KJV, and building linguistic arguments from it, is completely unimpressive to anyone familiar with the bases of the Catholic dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Ezekiel 44:1-2

“Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, facing the east; but it was closed. He said to me: This gate is to remain closed; it is not to be opened for anyone to enter by it; since the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it, it shall remain closed.”

Why was it death for Adonijah to request the hand of the virgin Abishag?

[Mad Dawg]

Evidently some are all for ox goring until it is their ox. THAT’s pitiful.

[Mad Dawg]

Thanks for an interesting and thoughtful post. I do think you will find spirit filled people in all denominations. I think God is more gracious than we are.

[Mad Dawg]

That word is offensive: popery.

And besides, the correct spelling is pot pourri

[OLD REGGIE]

The Septuagint, including Tobit, was compiled by Jews from among their holiest writings. It was the closest thing the Jews had to canon, as demonstrated by the strong preference for it in New Testament quotations, until the anti-Christian Pharisees decided, sometime around the turn of the first century, that they needed to reboot the canon by excluding anything which did not meet their carefully contrived arbitrary exclusions.

Preferring the canon of the Pharisees to the canon of the New Testament writers is indeed a strange alley down which to be led in defence of Chritian scriptural authority.

The later day Christian Church had nothing whatsoever to do with the canonization of Jewish Scripture in 70 AD. It was given to the Jews by God.

Out of curiosity, where do you find your "history"?

[OLD REGGIE]

First of all, if the shoe fits...secondly, try to not be thin-skinned. Thin-skinned posters are the disrupters on open threads, or so we are told.

You have no idea what was posted except that you seem to find it necessary to lecture me. Lecture away.

It was cowardly when posted. It was equally cowardly when it was sent into the ether. And, I told that to the poster.

[OLD REGGIE]

Something also about a certain Nazarene making clay from his own spittle and the dust, smearing it on a blind man's eyes and telling him to go wash in a pool called Siloam (which means "sent")?

I guess he wasn't aware of Tobit.

[Philo-Junius]

St. Paul saying c. 55 AD that the Jews HAD BEEN entrusted with the oracles has no bearing on the choice of a self-selecting group of Jews 25-50 years later to try to pitch them out.

If 20-30 rabbis got together tomorrow and decided to pitch the last part of Isaiah, would you get out your exacto knife and go to work on your family Bible?

[OLD REGGIE]

It did, in fact, answer a post addressed directly to me from you.

Yes you did but it had nothing to do with the subject. You posted to me, and me only. That is why I questioned your intent.

Your reply: "... regarding a post neither to you, nor about you."

If it wasn't to me or about me you were mistaken in posting exclusively to me.

I still have no idea what you are talking about.