Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Worship of Mary? (An Observation)

Posted on 05/30/2008 10:21:34 AM PDT by 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.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; mary; rcc; romancatholic
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 3,381-3,4003,401-3,4203,421-3,440 ... 11,821-11,826 next last
To: Dr. Eckleburg

You’re right, God alone knows. Thank you.


3,401 posted on 06/06/2008 9:42:54 AM PDT by Marysecretary (.GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3355 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings
Since you've obviously never read the bible, how would you know? lol

You see, that's where the old joke about "assume" comes from... Do you think just because I don't tack chapter and verse on when I use a phrase like "turn and rend" it's by accident?

Are you so conceited you don't know when I ask you for a verse it's because I already know such a verse doesn't exist?

3,402 posted on 06/06/2008 9:43:50 AM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3294 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

Sado-evanglists? No name calling here...


3,403 posted on 06/06/2008 9:45:07 AM PDT by Marysecretary (.GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3368 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
I posted the exact words of the RCC catechism.

The exact words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church include the footnote numbers (at the least).

BTW, you know that in this instance (a) it is not the Roman Catholic Catechism, but the Catechism of the Catholic Church; and further (b) proper nouns should be capitalized.

3,404 posted on 06/06/2008 9:45:31 AM PDT by Petronski (Scripture & Tradition must be accepted & honored w/equal sentiments of devotion & reverence. CCC 82)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3400 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
So it is possible He could do whatever He wanted, despite what He would later write in the New Testament.

If you base your faith on what Christ could have done rather than on what He did do, well, good luck with that.

Christ could have turned Himself into a rooster and crowed at every dawn, but I doubt He did.

3,405 posted on 06/06/2008 9:46:01 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3395 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” — Acts 4:12

= = =

INDEED.

But but but but bbbbuuuttttt

Scripture has to be wrong—just ask the RC magisterical . . .

There’s St Mary, St Joseph, St Hotentot, St Mugwumps and a long list of others so handy to call on when folks are bored with Jesus.

/s


3,406 posted on 06/06/2008 9:46:12 AM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3330 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

No I’m using evidence from your past posts to me and others. After I do post the verses to you, I’m met with silence. Hopefully you are searching the scriptures to see if the things we say are true.


3,407 posted on 06/06/2008 9:46:28 AM PDT by 1000 silverlings (Everything that deceives also enchants: Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3402 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
It's a blanket statement that you have never read the Bible, yet it is neither personal nor mindreading.


3,408 posted on 06/06/2008 9:46:52 AM PDT by Petronski (Scripture & Tradition must be accepted & honored w/equal sentiments of devotion & reverence. CCC 82)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3402 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster

LOL.

—have to smell it anyway.


3,409 posted on 06/06/2008 9:47:18 AM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3334 | View Replies]

To: Quix

Ah. Thank you.


3,410 posted on 06/06/2008 9:47:33 AM PDT by Marysecretary (.GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3383 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom

He does like to lurk around our computers...


3,411 posted on 06/06/2008 9:48:27 AM PDT by Marysecretary (.GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3386 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster

Yeah, the city blocks full of lofty skyscraprs built on the

toothpick “full of grace”

. . . shocking is too mild a word.


3,412 posted on 06/06/2008 9:48:40 AM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3336 | View Replies]

To: Petronski; 1000 silverlings
The phrase "you've obviously never" is equivalent to the phrase "evidently you have not" and is therefore "not making it personal."

The pointer is on the speaker, not the object - it is his own judgment of the evidence. So the discussion should turn to his judgment. If you believe his judgment to be in error, then you might reply "false!" or "you're wrong" etc.

3,413 posted on 06/06/2008 9:49:29 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3333 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Oh, I think you’ve covered that quite well.


3,414 posted on 06/06/2008 9:49:47 AM PDT by Marysecretary (.GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3397 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

I didn’t say “could have,” I said “could.”

“Could have” is speculation, “could” means “had the power.”


3,415 posted on 06/06/2008 9:49:50 AM PDT by Petronski (Scripture & Tradition must be accepted & honored w/equal sentiments of devotion & reverence. CCC 82)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3405 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
As further evidence, when someone asks you to post the scripture that you claim to be referencing, you refuse.
3,416 posted on 06/06/2008 9:49:52 AM PDT by 1000 silverlings (Everything that deceives also enchants: Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3402 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
The exact words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church include the footnote numbers (at the least).

There's no rule that says anyone MUST post the footnote numbers. No one complained when I excerpted from the WCF without footnote numbers.

Or are you now demanding this, too?

FYI, in the future I may choose to post from the RCC catechism without the footnotes. Be advised all references will be originating from the vatican.va website.

3,417 posted on 06/06/2008 9:50:21 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3404 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

Thank you.


3,418 posted on 06/06/2008 9:50:44 AM PDT by 1000 silverlings (Everything that deceives also enchants: Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3413 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator
The phrase "you've obviously never" is equivalent to the phrase "evidently you have not" and is therefore "not making it personal."


3,419 posted on 06/06/2008 9:51:39 AM PDT by Petronski (Scripture & Tradition must be accepted & honored w/equal sentiments of devotion & reverence. CCC 82)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3413 | View Replies]

To: Marysecretary; papertyger
Name calling becomes "making it personal" when it is addressed to another Freeper, specifically.

For instance, a poster might say some or all Protestants are sado-evangelists and that is not "making it personal" - but if he is speaking to or of a particular Freeper, it is.

3,420 posted on 06/06/2008 9:52:40 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3403 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 3,381-3,4003,401-3,4203,421-3,440 ... 11,821-11,826 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson