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.

[Antoninus]

She will be alive after the judgement, like the rest of us.

Where does it say in Scripture that souls will be dead until the judgment and then be alive afterwards?

[Petronski]

I thought the ultimate paradox was the fact that sola scriptura does not appear in Scripture.

[Antoninus]

Don’t you EVER question anything your church says? We’re supposed to.

Wher are you taught to do that in Scripture?

[Antoninus]

I like the appeal to Sola Scriptura when it suits you. How do you determine when to use it and when not to?

Easy. I only use it when debating a Sola Scriptura Protestant. As they've cut themselves off from the rest of the traditions and teachings of the Church, that's invariably the most effective way to go.

[1000 silverlings]

The example of the Bereans

[Antoninus]

I thought the ultimate paradox was the fact that sola scriptura does not appear in Scripture.

Well, that too. :-D

[wagglebee]

The "woman" is Eve

So, Eve's "Seed" (i.e. Cain) crushes Satan's head?

[netmilsmom]

Wagglebee never said you hated him, however that doesn’t mean that you are not filled with hate for his ways.

I tell my children, I don’t hate you, but I sure hate how you are acting.

Some people scream “I don’t hate you, I love you”, when a poster says “hate”, and then the original poster is accused of being “thin skinned” or a “victim”. When that person NEVER said a person specifically hated another person.

There is TONS of hate that flies on these threads. I’m not sure that a some non-Catholics can say that they don’t hate the actions of Catholics. So don’t personalize the word “hate”. Then the person personalizing it is thin skinned.

[1000 silverlings]

I see, so you really don’t believe what you are saying but it makes for an effective argument?

[fortheDeclaration]

Isis was worshipped openly in Rome, well into the 5th century AD. Her symbol as was the symbol of all "The Queens of Heaven" was the crescent of Venus, therefore you get horns. The pagan nature goddesses have all been made into Mary to blend the various pagan religions into a syncretic Christianity. "Juan Diego" was the anonymous "John Doe"representing everyman

Amen.

[1000 silverlings]

that doesn’t mean that you are not filled with hate for his ways

that's pure speculation and borders on mind reading

[Antoninus]

I see, so you really don’t believe what you are saying but it makes for an effective argument?

Don't put words in my mouth. I mean what I'm saying and it makes for an effective argument.

[1000 silverlings]

lol

[Antoninus]

BTW, I'm still interested in your reaction to this statement:

It is impossible for God to heal someone at the behest of one of His saints in heaven.

[Petronski]

I suspect the answer you get will be doused in the supralapsarian predestination pap that Cauvin sprayed around like a lawn sprinkler.

[netmilsmom]

>>that doesn’t mean that you are not filled with hate for his ways
that’s pure speculation and borders on mind reading <<

Ooooops! I try really hard to get rid of those pronouns but sometimes they slip in.

Let it state for the record “You are not filled...” should be “one is not filled....”

My bad.

[timm22]

You are limiting God by saying that it's impossible that God might be moved by the entreaties of his saints in heaven.

But if it is possible for God to be moved by those entreaties, what does that say about God's nature?

As I understand Christianity, God is believed to be perfect, all-knowing and all-good. The way I see it, God could not have these attributes and still be subject to the persuasion of any lesser being.

To illustrate, suppose I am facing a crisis. Let's say a serious illness. I could die from the illness, or recover in varying degrees.

God knows all the potential outcomes to this situation and the ultimate good that would come from each outcome. Since God is all-good, if He were to intervene (or choose not to intervene) in my illness He would act so that the best ultimate outcome (the most good) would result. Do we agree so far?

If God could be persuaded, through prayer, to take a different course of action, then that has to mean one of two things:

1. His initial choice was incorrect (not the most good). This means that God is not perfect or all-knowing and that, through prayer, He can be shown the error of His ways.

2. His intial choice was correct (the most good outcome), but He may choose an outcome that leads to a lesser ultimate good at our behest. This means that God can choose the less-good over the most-good. To me, that seems to indicate that God may not be perfectly good.

Either way, if God is subject to our persuasion (or that of the saints or Mary) then it seems to indicate He is capable of making mistakes.

So I guess it could be possible for God to be moved by the prayers of others, but it seems contrary to what is believed about His nature. Is there a way to reconcile this contradiction, or am I misunderstanding the Christian concept of God?

[fortheDeclaration]

the verse should be translated "He shall bruise you on the head" (Genesis 3:15, NASB).

No, it should read it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

This is why in Lk.2:35, the passage reads, 'therefore that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God'.

The Heb. for the pronoun 'it' can be either masc.fem. or neuter, but since it is referring back to the 'seed' it is neuter.

The heel (shuwph) that is bruised (his heel)is masc. not feminine, since it has a masc. suffix.

Beware of Modern Version translations!

[fortheDeclaration]

All this fancy footwork about the origins of co- in latin is, imho, just another example of flurry tactics, obsfucation, denial, rationalizing and the like. If it were otherwise, there would have been a definitive document from the Vatican instructing the faithful to avoid using co- in English and establishing an alternate term that meant no such hint of equality--exhorting all the faithful to never write or use co- again in any such references to Mary.

Amen.

That is a tactic of the RCC, always leave itself some 'wiggle' room to deny an blatent heresy, but wink at it on the side.

[OLD REGGIE]

I believe it is God’s will to heal if He wants to. Sometimes He doesn’t heal for a reason.

Thy will be done.....

Yes!