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.

And it does not mean that she is NOT equal to or superior than Jesus...Your church refuses to define the meaning...

The Church doesn't define the meaning because the Church isn't teaching it! In order to have a dogmatic definition, it needs to actually be taught by the Church - the title "co-redemptrix" is not taught by the Church. It is a proposed Marian dogma by a subset of the Church, but far from official. And the definition used by the proponents DOES indeed specifically state she is NOT EQUAL to Christ.

So when your church claims Mary dispenses ALL graces, and that Salvation comes thru Mary, it's left up to the local leaders how much emphasis they want to put on it...

Where did Salvation of Man come from? Jesus? Agreed. Through who did Jesus come? Mary? You betcha. Thus, Salvation came through Mary, quite literally. And yes, local leaders get the option to focus on different teachings of the Church. If a Priest lives in a community where no one drinks, but adultery runs rampant, he would probably avoid giving homilies on the danger of alcoholism. I don't get what your point is here.

Pretty slick move...Your church already has Mary as the co-advocate-mediator, even tho Jesus says that's a lie...There's ONE mediator...Not a co-mediator...

I was discussing this with CharlesWayneCT upthread - yes, Christ is the only mediator between God and man. But is Christ God? There are many ways to offer a specific petition to God - each Christian (those on Earth and those in Heaven) has a direct line to the Father through Christ. Many routes to God (each believer has one), one route to the Father (through Christ). Basically Christ is the bottleneck for all our prayers. Mary is the height of Creation, and since we know the prayers of Holy people are especially effective, we ask her to bring our prayers to her son. But, you know all this...and I highly doubt I'll change your mind. I pray that you open your mind to the fullness of Christ in His Church.

The scripture never explains why he was permitted to do something against the law, but can anyone deny he was given that permission?

Naaman the Syrian was healed of his leprosy when he reluctantly obeyed Elisha's instruction to wash himself seven times in the Jordan whereupon he believed God. (2 Kings 5)

And he returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and came, and stood before him: and he said, Behold, now I know that [there is] no God in all the earth, but in Israel: now therefore, I pray thee, take a blessing of thy servant. - 2 Kings 5:15

Jesus our Lord gave the incident with Naaman as an example of the Spiritual Truth that prophets are rejected by their own people.

And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country.

But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land; But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, [a city] of Sidon, unto a woman [that was] a widow.And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian. - Luke 4:24-27

This also points to the Gospel of Christ being rejected by the Jews while being received with gladness by the Gentiles. (Romans 11, boast not against the branches) And that is a fulfillment of this prophesy from the Song of Moses:

They have moved me to jealousy with [that which is] not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with [those which are] not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation. – Deuteronomy 32:21

The Song of Moses will be sung in heaven along with the Song of the Lamb:

And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous [are] thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true [are] thy ways, thou King of saints. – Revelation 15:3

And again, Scripture speaks of the fulfillment of the prophesy:

I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. – Romans 11:11

And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, [and] one shepherd. – John 10:16

Where are you reading that Naaman was permitted to do something against the law?

My leading in these passages is that Naaman's spiritual life story was in fulfillment of the will of God and directly related to His promise, standing as an example for our illumination.

To God be the glory!

Thank you oh so very much for your very insightful post, dear brother in Christ!

More than anyone known to me, you are always aware of the metaphors - especially Scriptural metaphors - that they are metaphors and look to the underlying message.

In my view, a person who has difficulty with analogical knowledge suffers the greatest risk when faced with a metaphor. In essence, a picture of a man is not the man, a statue of Christ on the cross is not Christ on the cross, etc.

Or to use one of your favorites, when one says "it is raining cats and dogs" people shouldn't expect companion animals to be falling from the sky.

And yet there are many upon seeing Michelango's "Creation of Adam" fresco in the Sistine Chapel - who walk away with the impression that God is, or that Christians think God is, a gray haired old man on a cloud.

Maranatha, Jesus!!!

I have a friend (brother in christ) that refers to "literal" christians and "metaphorical" christians.. That he was once a literal christian but "grew" to be able to see the metaphorical aspects of scripture.. He calls it listing with both ears (to God) instead of one ear..

You can see that process very good on these kinds of threads... Some have a hard time grasping the metaphors and metaphorical aspects of scripture.. Reading much of the bible literally and missing the subtle aspects of the metaphors.. even though there are places that should be viewed literally.. The literalists get flumoxed on which is literal and which isn't so they view it ALL as literal.. I suspect..

Could be because a metaphor is/are words that say something about something else than the words really mean.. WHich is the POINT of even speaking metaphorically.. To transact ideas beyond what the words are capable of.. or even to hide the real meaning..

n Jeremiah 7:18, God is indeed upset with the Israelites for worshipping a false goddess called the "queen of heaven". However, just because God rebuked them for worshipping the false queen of heaven, doesn't mean that we cannot pay honor to the true Queen of Heaven...the Blessed Mother.

That type of thinking would lead you to believe that just because people worship a false god that they call "god," we, therefore, should not call the true God, by that same name...God...because that's the same title the idolaters use for their god! That is faulty logic and it makes no sense whatsoever.

Again, the fact that there is a false "queen of heaven", does not lead to the conclusion that we worship a false goddess when we call Mary the "Queen of Heaven." Just as the fact that there is a false "god", does not lead to the conclusion that we worship a false god when we call our Father in Heaven, God.

And there is a true Queen of Heaven in the bible, we see this quite clearly in Revelation 12:1, "And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars..." Let's see. There's a woman...she's in Heaven...and she has a crown on her head. I could be wrong, but I don't think it's the maid! No! It is the true Queen of Heaven, Mary, the mother of the male child who is to rule the nations.

We do not worship Mary, we honor her, just as Jesus honors her. So, there is absolutely nothing wrong, from a scriptural point of view, in calling Mary the Queen of Heaven, and in honoring her just as Jesus honors her.

As with all things of faith it is a personal experience. My love and faith in Jesus has grown with my love and understanding of his loving mother who did "God's will". I feel sorry for those who are missing out on the great gift of his mother's love that Jesus gave all his disciples. It is beautifull.

Symbols (e.g., metaphors) are what they are because we humans sometimes need to transcend mere literal or "descriptive" language in order to grasp and convey the deeper truths that inform our experience of reality. We cannot entirely leave the realm of conventional language here, assuming we wish to communicate our insights to others. The problem is how to make the conventional language express the deeper insights, which are also in a certain way "conventional"; i.e., because of their long historical heritage and universality. Any good symbol has to survive historical change in order to claim and retain its bona fides. [Which is why the Progressive Left is ever so intent on the transformation of cultural symbols as a major lever of cultural change — a topic for another time perhaps.]

Of course, the Holy Bible excels at this sort of thing. Moreoever, it is the single best-selling book of all time; and this trend seemingly continues into our own day.

Considering its Author, this should come as no surprise to anyone.

But then again, in our skeptical age, we might ask: Why should this be so? This (it seems to me, since the question of legitimate Authorship has been effectively laid aside) is to turn the question to what the Holy Bible is all about.

If I might humbly suggest, what the Holy Bible is all about is the universal description of a Great Hierarchy of Being: God–Man–World–Society. The emphasis is on the God–Man relation, made manifest in the Life and Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ. I believe that it is through this relation that the other partners in being are established in their respective dignities.

The Bible is not a recipe book, a roadmap, an instruction manual, or scientific textbook of any kind. It does not directly deal with any phenomena of physical nature. Thus its subject matter is entirely beyond the realm of scientific description. Its subject matter is the spiritual dimension of human life and experience — to man's relations with God, Nature, and Society.

According to the late Francis Schaeffer, God ever speaks to us "truly" through the language of the Holy Bible, though not "exhaustively." If He were to speak "exhaustively," there would be no room for human free will in the universe.

I invite you, dear reader, to consider that last observation. And then to give all thanks, praise, and glory to our amazingly Provident God in Whom we rest and have our being, Our loving Father and Creator.

[Which is why the Progressive Left is ever so intent on the transformation of cultural symbols as a major lever of cultural change — a topic for another time perhaps.]

Also why various forms of christanity do the same.. deeming those not "othodox" as heretics.. Who then has the last word on the "symbols"?... Thats the point.. no one does.. except the Holy SPirit.. WHich is why there a Holy SPirit in the first place.. To reveal to "US" what needs to be revealed at the time.. A progressive "revealing" has been my expierence..

If "someone" has us indoctrinated we will/can reject the Holy Spirits revelations.. Seems to be the truth no matter the orthodoxy we belong to.. Being free of orthodoxy may be the wise choice.. not ignorant of it but free from it..

Jewish orthodoxy COST many Jews the blessing of Jesus salvation from Moses law.. and still does.. If the Holy Spirit can define the symbols to us in a progressive revelation then we CAN learn.. else we can get stuck on stupid..

I think an examination of your first citation from "The Glories of Mary" is quite sufficient to demonstrate the character of the rest of the criticism.

The following response comes from a similar exchange dealing with the same citation on Dave Armstrong's Biblical Catholic pages

'And is truly a mediatress of peace between sinners and God. Sinners receive pardon by ...Mary alone.' (pp 82,83)

Now we see already, right from the start, how Len misinterprets and even quotes incorrectly, the text he is critiquing. The reader will observe that this becomes a distressingly regular occurrence, as we proceed. He is using the same reprint of the book that I have before me. But my copy has the word "made" between "truly" and "a" -- which makes a big difference: Mary is not who she is intrinsically, but because God chose to make her so. In context, the mediatorship of Mary is shown to be "the powerful help of the intercession of Mary" (p. 82); which is a far different thing from dying on the cross and atoning for our sins, as our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ did. But by eliminating the contextual reference to intercession, the impression is left that Catholicism is trying to place Mary in Jesus' unique position.
The second sentence in Len's "quotation" is on the next page; it isn't the next sentence. The words he has deleted (from St. John Chrysostom) are: "the intercession of." Why are they eliminated? The result is that one might mistakenly think that Mary is granting the forgiveness or the grace which makes it possible. Yet in the very next sentence, St. Alphonsus states: "our Lord dispenses all grace." What a difference context and refusal to engage in highly selective citation makes.

Indeed.

When one takes a less crusading approach to the Marian teachings of the Catholic Church it becomes quickly apparent that teaching would seem contradictory to those superficial students inclined and motivated to find contradiction, and amply explains the recourse to such embarrassingly selective citations.

Nevertheless, like any Biblical contradiction, this should be an indicator to the reader there is more here than meets the eye in a cursory examination, not a justification for scoffing.

Neither the Cana passage nor the Revelations passage say anything about Mary being “Queen”.

And while I obviously have a level of disdain for “Church Authority”, to the degree the church has authority, it should be based on the Word of God in scripture, which should provide at least a vague inkling of the concepts.

So while the Cana passage can be used (inappropriately, I believe) to suggest Mary as intercessor, and the Revelations passage can (again inappropriately) be interpreted as suggesting Mary had some special place of honor, neither give any suggestion that Mary was ever intended to rule anything, or be considered any relationship of “Queen”.

Neither the Cana passage nor the Revelations passage say anything about Mary being "Queen".

Of course not, Charles. It was never my intention to imply they did. I simple wished to point out your claim there is "no indication" is a bit of hyperbolization, and not rigorously demonstrable.

And while I obviously have a level of disdain for "Church Authority", to the degree the church has authority, it should be based on the Word of God in scripture, which should provide at least a vague inkling of the concepts.

Isn't the fact this assertion is NOT rigidly demonstrable, even from Scripture itself, one of the things that seperate us?

I see no utility inserting it here as if it were actually a point of agreement between us. Do you?

How can you expect to maintain your intellectual credibility when you admit (with apropriate qualifiers) in the first and second clauses what you deny in the third and forth clauses?

Thank you so very much for your beautiful essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!

Very well said.

Truly, the words of God are spirit and life - not just language symbols spoken or written. God has hidden Truth in plain view so that only those with 'ears to hear' can receive it.

Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. – John 8:43

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. – John 6:63

Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and [their] ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and should understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. But blessed [are] your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. – Matthew 13:13-16

For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. – Isaiah 55:8-9

To God be the glory!

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.