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.

[Mad Dawg]

This may seem all backwards, but I'd say first let's encourage our homies to pray for guidance on the matter of their own apostolic vocation. (And let's do it ourselves!)

In my early preaching days, I came to learn that a sermon that "worked" (as far as one can know that) was one that cost me a couple of layers of stomach lining and that made me want, the minute I was done, to walk out of the pulpit and to the nearest train station and buy a one-way ticket to the antipodes. Those were the ones that invariably got the most ebullient "thank you"s and so forth.

I now think God was saying, "YOU don't preach sermons, I preach sermons, using your mouth, sometimes," and/or "My strength is sufficient for you."

The connection? Um, this: God has an apostolate for every, individual one of us. IF and AS we take up the work of discernment and then sacrificial obedience to His call, He prospers the work of our hands (or mouf, as the case may be).

Yes, it SEEMS that a congregation on fire would be a wonderful thing. But He graciously does all things for each one of us, and what He cannot amend, He can and does redeem. So we ought not to despair when a congregation seems moribund. Maybe it is just especially rich manure heaped up around one rose which has yet to blossom! But when it does ....AH!

As I like to say, "Compost Happens!"

In this degenerate age, we don't even know what the cardinal virtues are, so we don't pray for them. In addition to the divine gifts of Faith, Hope, and Love, we should pray also for courage, fairness, prudence and temperance in our obedience to our Divine call. And we should enter, endure, and let go of our work as all done for Him.

One of the gifts of my little community, mostly elderly ladies, has given me, is an opportunity to let go all the time, to let go of the work I did yesterday or five minutes ago or the work I am doing now as I write to you. God can prosper it, and if He doesn't build the city ... fuhgeddaboudit!

SO, in sum, pray for your apostolate and for the gifts you need to accomplish it. And commend your work to our loving Lord (and it wouldn't hurt -- heh heh - to offer it under the patronage of our blessed Mother). When it's His time, the Spirit will ignite.

One of the best things that ever was said to me was when I was on retreat before my (attempted) ordination to the PepsiCola priesthood. An Episcopal nun told me, "It's not your priesthood. Don't forget that. It's God's, and it's your job to give it to Him minute by minute." (or words to that effect.)

So YOU live on fire. It'll spread.

I feel like a fool writing this. It may not be good, but it's what I have.

[Petronski]

Of course, this is all a massively-multiplayer version of The Game:

Catholic: The proposal is “co-Redemptrix,” and the petition specifies “co-” in the sense of the Latin word “cum” meaning “with...”

Anti-Catholic bigot: You’ve made her a goddess! A joint-saviour! A joint-redeemer with Jesus Christ!

Catholic: That’s not the proposal at all...

Anti-Catholic bigot: SILENCE! Foul mariolator!

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

No that is not what I’m saying...I’m saying keeping the law does not save us, as we can not keep it perfectly. The law showed us our sin, and Gods righteousness.

REad Romans 5.

Becky

[John Leland 1789]

A polite title for all ministers in the 17th and 18th centuries when speaking in the third person was Mr. _________. At least in English-speaking countries. People used to say, Mr. Wesley,” “Mr. Spurgeon,” “Mr. Whitefield.”

But I will also say that I have no obligation to use Catholic titles for any sinner on earth. In keeping, I was ordained, and I will not respond if someone addresses me as “Reverend.” I'm absolutely deaf to it. “Brother” is appropriate from Christian to Christian, and that is what I respond to.

I teach the women in our church to "reverence" their own husbands (Ephesians 5; last verse - KJB), NOT their pastor. Just a note for “emerging church” crowd. We live in a day when young people are calling their ministers by their given first name. I consider that disrespectful. But then, I consider it disrespectful for anyone many years junior to address their senior by their given first name without an appropriate word up front like “Brother” (if Christian), or “Mister.” Teenagers and children should still use the senior's surname. If a teenager addresses me by my given name alone, I don't know that teenager is in the room. If he persists, I will rebuke and correct him, in front of a crowd if necessary. Evidently such a one NEEDS a parent.

But “Mr. Ratzinger” is polite and quite sufficient.

[Petronski]

But “Mr. Ratzinger” is polite and quite sufficient.

It is neither.

[Petronski]

But “Mr. Ratzinger” is polite and quite sufficient.

It is neither.

[papertyger]

Do you think hatred is something to brag about?

I never put much stock in Protestant inferences...as you can see they're not very good at it.

[Petronski]

...without an appropriate word up front like “Brother” (if Christian), or “Mister.”

Seems that you're saying, by your own code, that then-Cardinal Ratzinger was not (is not?) Christian.

Is Pope Benedict XVI a Christian?

[John Leland 1789]

I really have no idea if he is or not because I’ve not heard his testimony of of how he came to be a child of God, and can’t make that judgment.

[Petronski]

You can't make that judgment?

You're darn right you can't.

I pity you.

[mgist]

I think all Catholics see Mary in a different way. It really depends on our experiences in life. I see her, personally, that when she was on earth, she was basically the first Christian. She was an amazing example of obedience to God. She was with Our Savior from the beggining to the end. What is most incredible to me is this mother saw her son tortured, spat on, and killed, on the cross. As a mother, one can only imagine how it must have been for Mary to meet her beloved son, her baby, covered with blood and saliva.

Only a mother who has sufferred for her children could begin to understand that there is no human suffferring greater than hers.

To me, Our Lady's mission on earth, was as signifant as Jesus being born in a stable. The significance of the humble birth being that to God, the least of us, is the greatest. That is amazing.

In our world, a woman obedient to God, is essential for God's kingdom. Our motherhood, a holy family, has a tremendous impact on society. The complete distortion of women with the feminist agenda is a reflection on how the enemy attacks what is so important to God. Maybe that is why God gave us such precious gifts to remind us of who He is.

[maryz]

Perhaps we should start calling their pastors, "head snakehandler."

Now, that wouldn't be fair -- only some Protestant churches practice snake handling (not Lutherans it appears -- I guess the Holy Spirit informs them differently):

Trudy asked me, “Vicar Mike, are you familiar with snake handling?” I told her I was aware that there were churches w[h]ere that was practiced. Trudy went on to describe her experiences of handling snakes and how the men would drink poison and dance so that the Holy Spirit would deliver them from death and danger. I listened and reassured Trudy that snake handling and drinking poison didn’t mean she couldn’t come and worship with us and we could continue to talk about it.

I did read years ago (just an aside in a novel) that pharmaceutical companies working on drugs from snake venom like to locate near those churches that practice it -- makes it easier to hire people who aren't afraid to handle the snakes.

[papertyger]

I see that my "flawed" interpretation said that the Holy Spirit allows Christians to understand the deep things of God. Here it is, why don't you give us your interpretation, since mine is Gnostic.

No, see it doesn't work that way. If there were a flaw in the chain of reasoning I laid out, you need to point it out, not tell me to intepret the passage.

I don't need to be a bird expert to tell you a rabbit can't fly.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

DR.E: But that hasn't stopped Catholics on this forum from saying Mary is on the cross with Christ and helping Him to save His sheep.

WAGGLEBEE: Then POST THE LINK, because to make such a blatantly outrageous claim without proof is bearing false witness.

lol. "Outrageous claim?!?"

Would that that were true.

From an article in the newspaper published by the Holy See and written by JPII...

MARY WAS UNITED TO JESUS ON THE CROSS

"A disciple and friend of St Bernard, Arnold of Chartres, shed light particularly on Mary's offering in the sacrifice of Calvary. He distinguished in the Cross "two altars: one in Mary's heart, the other in Christ's body. Christ sacrificed his flesh, Mary her soul". Mary sacrificed herself spiritually in deep communion with Christ, and implored the world's salvation: "What the mother asks, the Son approves and the Father grants" (cf. De septem verbis Domini in cruce, 3: PL 189, 1694)..."

Read it and weep. Just about every word treacherous to the Gospel.

Are Catholics so blind they miss the fact the above paragraph (and the entire link) hands God's electing grace over to Mary, of all people!

"What the mother asks, the Son approves and the Father grants."

And if Mary doesn't ask, the Son won't approve!?!

Do you not see this puts Mary in the position of determining salvation with Christ merely okaying the deal and God fascilitating it? All in response to Mary's initial instigating request!?!!!

Blasphemy.

Shame on the words in that link. The more I read of what the RCC has done to Mary, in their own words, no less, the more grateful to God I am for keeping me from such idolatry and lies.

Flee from it.

[papertyger]

A few of your messages of love:

Where I come from we call that a "pair."

[John Leland 1789]

I don't believe that all church members are saved, or that all ministers in pulpits are saved. Religion can't save, and there are a whole lot of fantastically religious people on church membership rolls, including in our church.

Matthew 7:21, 22 reveals that there are and will be people who do many WONDERFUL works in Jesus’ name; and Jesus will disavow their profession of Him as “Lord.” And then He will call their WONDERFUL WORKS “INIQUITY..”

I think that kind of thing is going to go to the tops of the ladders in all religious structures. People don't have to be boozers or adulterers, or thieves or molesters, or extortioners to be iniquitous. Some are iniquitous in their religiosity.

This is exactly how Jehovah described His own Covenant People, Israel, by the mouth of Isaiah (Isaiah ch. 1). Actually they were doing the religious works that He had commanded them to do, but then God called it wickedness. There was an element missing.

I've had, on many occasions, church members (an a half dozen ordained ministers over the years) come to me and ask, “Do you think I'm saved?” I tell them the same thing — “I haven't the foggiest idea.” Then I often go on to state, “Since salvation includes the indwelling of a Witness — the Holy Spirit — I can't put any more confidence in one's salvation than they do themselves.” If they don't know if they are genuinely saved, how can I possibly know?

I know what to tell a sinner who is conscious of his own need for the New Birth (regeneration; salvation) what to believe from the Scriptures to become a child of God, and how to go to Christ personally for the gift of salvation. If a previously professing Christian expresses uncertainty in their connection to Christ, I will not give them a false hope. I will take them back to the very same message of the Cross, and the sufficiency of Christ's Blood in the payment for their sins. I can only deliver the message. I can't make them a Christian. Only Christ can make a sinner a child of God.

[papertyger]

You said:

A person can be declared righteous by believing just what the OT teaches...Trust God. That's it.

That is pretty good. It took Jesus a whole two clause sentence to sum up the OT, and you can do it in two words...not.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Ping to 3,576 to learn who redeems in the RCC.