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.

[netmilsmom]

>>How that sentence translates into hatred of anything is a stretch at best, and just more whining and crying that some here are persecuted. It’s nuts <<

But he didn’t personalize it. He didn’t say Mary, so she had to have been mistaken when she said, “I don’t hate you.”

He didn’t say that she did. He is saying that hateful things are said about our dogma. Should we get a tally? No, that’s silly because for every one I find you can find one too. We need not to personalize the posts.

I used to be on Catholic Answers Forums. The libs took over and that was the constant cry, “You said I said that....” when that wasn’t it at all.

You have to admit there are tons of hateful things said here. None of it should be. As Sitetest said (and I am paraphrasing) One can disagree with someone’s beliefs and argue them without being a jerk.

All of us should stop being jerks. I’m trying but don’t always succeed.

[netmilsmom]

>>No I don’t see<<

I’m sorry, I must not be conveying it correctly.
Maybe Wagglebee can explain it.

[fortheDeclaration]

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

LOL! Is this a satire or a spoof or something? (Psst -- here's a clue: "heel" in Hebrew is "akev"! Another clue: noun "suffixes" in Hebrew indicate possession and show the gender, person and number of the possessor -- they have nothing to do with the gender of the noun.)

I put the Heb. word in the wrong place in the sentence, it should have been referring to 'bruised', not the heel.

It is the Heb.word for bruise has the suffix and it is in the Masc. bruise(his) Heel

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.; Hebrew doesn't have a neuter.

As for the pronoun, you are correct, Hebrew doesn't have a neuter, but the pronoun is referring back to the word 'seed' which is neuter in the English, thus the usage of the word 'it' in the English.

I was typing a bit too quick, but ofcourse, gnat strainers love to find gnats.

[Judith Anne]

Luke 20, 34-48 has some words from Jesus, on where the dead are...

[1000 silverlings]

for every one I find you can find one too. We need not to personalize the posts.

I doubt that every time Calvin is insulted, Dr. Eckleburg starts crying that "they" hate her. Nor do I have any recollection of anyone else on the Protestant's side 100x a day coming up with that defense. He referred back to Mary's post, which was her opinion alone, and so he did personalize it.

[netmilsmom]

>>He referred back to Mary’s post, which was her opinion alone, and so he did personalize it. <<

No, now actually it’s you who is attributing motives.

I say let Wagglebee come in and state whether he meant that Mary hates him or she hates his dogma.

[1000 silverlings]

I’m not attributing motives, he said what he said. I am saying a lot of people pull out the “hatred” defense as a means to avoid theological discussion. Like I said, it’s a security blankie to hide behind, and using it can effectively silence debate.

[wagglebee]

Marysecretary referred to this as a “fight” that implies hatred.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2023605/posts?page=2016#2016

[Judith Anne]

Could you or Marysecretary please comment on Luke 20, 34-48, as to whether or not Mary is dead?

I don’t hate you or Marysecretary, and I am VERY interested in your answer.

[1000 silverlings]

And like Mary has said before, disagreeing with dogma does not equate to "hate"

[1000 silverlings]

Post the scripture

[big'ol_freeper]

You rock!

[1000 silverlings]

Now that’s another stretch, even more so

[netmilsmom]

>>I’m not attributing motives, he said what he said. <<

Well actually, he said this

To: netmilsmom
Some here are so blinded by their hatred, they don’t think through the unintended consequences of their words.

2,021 posted on Wednesday, June 04, 2008 4:26:27 PM by wagglebee

It is against forum rules to “make it personal” so many of us are very careful not to do that. Just like I did before when I explained that the “you” was not singular nor directed at anyone personally.

Better we let Wagglebee explain it, don’t you think? That way neither of us are second guessing his motives.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

You need to take a lesson from your administrative smackdown the other day.

What "smackdown" was that?

Or are you bearing false witness?

[netmilsmom]

>>And like Mary has said before, disagreeing with dogma does not equate to “hate” <<

Very hurtful things get said on both sides. We need to stop that.

I love the dogma of the Catholic church, do you?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Of course God "values their prayers." We are commanded to pray for our own lives and the lives our our brethren.

That command, however, does not negate the preeminent fact that God knows our prayers; God knows what we need; God gives us everything we have; and God alone heals the sick.

If you believe other people heal you by their prayers then all I can say is perhaps your priorities are skewed.

[Quix]

cue laughing dog

and Mary shaking her head in incredulity.

[1000 silverlings]

Well these are the open threads and it's apparent that many "hurtful" things are taken that way when they aren't meant to, and even if they are, these threads are not for the thin-skinned, remember? The mod has gone to a lot of trouble to get people their comfy niches.

As for the "dogma of the Catholic church", you will have to be more specific just which dogma you are referencing. I may agree with some of it, that doesn't mean I "love" it. I may disagree with it, that doesn't mean I "hate" it.

[Quix]

Pretending that Scripture does

not

indicate a vast unalterable gulf between the living in this time/space dimension and those graduated from this sphere . . .

is more than a little disingenuous . . . smacks me as outrageously UNBiblical.