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 ... 3,981-4,0004,001-4,0204,021-4,040 ... 11,821-11,826 next last
To: betty boop

You do some pretty profound thinking and I mean that as a sincere compliment.


4,001 posted on 06/07/2008 9:47:53 PM PDT by tiki (True Christians will not deliberately slander or misrepresent others or their beliefs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3993 | View Replies]

To: Marysecretary; Dr. Eckleburg
“You need to read it for yourself. Bible believing Christians believe the Bible”

I read through the bible chronologically every year and twice through the Psalms along with a book of poetry and philosophy. It has been my early morning habit for over thirty years.

You say the bible is your basis for ultimate truth. How do you know it is a trustworthy source for ultimate truth?

“What church do you belong to?”

Thank you for the warm welcome. I'm sorry for the delay in responding.

I don't mean to be rude but what difference does the church I attend or if I don't attend any church make to any discussion? What I have learned in teaching and while watching this and other threads is that labels like epithets have a damning power to isolate into ideological camps and waste what should be fruitful discussion.

4,002 posted on 06/07/2008 9:49:46 PM PDT by enat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3843 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
“credo ut intellegam”

Believe in what? It is a circular argument, like “proof texting”. It is similar to fides quereas intellectum. Faith in what?

It seems to me that today the concept of “church” is an anachronism. The debate cannot be resolved because the accretions to the concept by all churches are now more important than the original idea.

I was just fortunate to be in the right place at the right time to hear Dr. Adler and even though the lecture lasted more than an hour and I'm sure if I had time to spend I could call to remembrance some of the main lecture. The only thing that fixed my attention was the fact that a seemingly committed agnostic had been persuaded by reason that there was a God beyond a reasonable doubt. The caveat in his later book that I did not pick up in the question and answer period was that although one could be persuaded by the evidence of this God's noncommunicable attributes, omi- this and that, one could not know His ethical attributes, love, mercy, grace etc. by reason or logic. That he said was by revelation.

ena

4,003 posted on 06/07/2008 9:49:47 PM PDT by enat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3978 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
Thank you for the link, dear OLD REGGIE!
4,004 posted on 06/07/2008 10:15:33 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3838 | View Replies]

To: enat; betty boop
Thank you for sharing your insights and your testimony, dear enat! And thank you for your encouragements.

The orderliness and consequent predictability of the world seemed to have traces of a transcendent being that caused it to come into being but the evidence of entropy and increasing disorder and chaos militated against that understanding.

Order cannot rise of chaos in an unguided physical system. Period.

There are always guides to the system. Even the metaphysical naturalist must admit that space, time, physical laws and constants are guides.

And of course there was a beginning of real space and real time and thus a beginning of physical causality itself.

Curiously, entropy in information theory (Shannon entropy) has a similar formulation to thermodynamic entropy.

Applied to molecular biology, information is the reduction of uncertainty (Shannon entropy) in a receiver (or molecular machine) in going from a before state to an after state.

That might sound like a "so what?" until one realizes that information (the action not the message) is definitive in determining between life v. non-life/death in nature. The message, DNA, survives.

The Wimmer successful experiment in bootstrapping the polio virus under laboratory conditions began with the message which was activated in a cell free juice. The Urey/Miller experiments did not have that insight and could accomplish nothing more than amino acids.

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. [There is] no speech nor language, [where] their voice is not heard. - Psalms 19:1-3

Also, chaos like randomness does not translate well from mathematics to physical systems.

For instance, one cannot say something is random in the system when he does not know what the system "is." A series of numbers extracted from the extension of pi might appear to be random when they are in fact highly determined.

To put that in perspective, the number and type of dimensions (spatial or temporal, compactified or expanded, etc.) is both unknown and unknowable.

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!

4,005 posted on 06/07/2008 10:42:27 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3842 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; enat; Mad Dawg
Thank you oh so very much for your glorious essay-post, dearest sister in Christ! It is definitely a keeper, a treasure - rich with insights.

Or to put it another way, the law of contradiction puts us in the position of cycling round and round in a system that furnishes us no way out to find a way to put our foot down on firm ground. It is a “rational” tool that in its operation hides its own “radix,” or root.

Rationality — reason, ratio, logic — implies a test of something against a more ultimate, universal criterion. Logic itself cannot provide this criterion, though it seems somehow to be in a certain sense the beneficiary and reflection of it. Otherwise, logic wouldn’t “work.”

Precisely so. Without the foothold, Logos, at best one has a self-consistent albeit delusional concept of "reality." And yet the very existence of logic suggests there must be a foothold.

But we need to remember that often “personal imaginings” are also true and valid — in the degree that they are informed by principles higher in the catalog, and especially by the first.

Indeed. The difference is a matter of certainty. The first is the most certain, the last is the least certain. Thus I can and do testify:

The LORD [is] my shepherd; I shall not want.

He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou [art] with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever. - Psalms 23

Or to put it another way, even though I know the valley of the shadow of death is there because of my senses or reasoning, I do not fear it because God is with me.

Anyhoot, I began this reflection with a desire to show how the complementarity principle associated with the Copenhagen School of quantum mechanics is a better formulation by which to address the contents of human experience in its connection to reality in general than the non-contradiction principle. After three pages, I still haven’t gotten there, and it seems timely to just sign off for now.

I do hope you finish this reflection and also that you re-introduce the complementarity principle. Perhaps it is time for another one of your articles?!

4,006 posted on 06/07/2008 11:19:31 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3993 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
For all who care to comment, I would like to share some personal thoughts.

I have lived in different countries and traveled fairly extensively. I have NEVER seen the anti-Catholic hate or simple rhetoric that exsists in this country. For those that argue otherwise, simple google search Pope-devil, will show you. Scary people out there.

In any case, what I find amazing is that this anymosity is almost identical to that of the hate-America crowd in the world. It also ranges from benign to scary, and it is identical in so many ways.

Now perhaps it is just a case of us being judged, the way we judge? I don't know.

Of course I love this country, when I try to talk to my anti-American friends, who are usually good people otherwise. There is NOTHING I can say to make them understand. It isn't that they don't get it. It is that they don't want to get it, they have some kind of guilty pleasure from it. When I comment, for example, don't you think that your country is also imperfect? (I'm really thinking, "How can this person who lives in a corrupt banana republic, call Americans ignorant?"). They just disregard my point. I don't understand it. But for some reason, certain people, seem to enjoy, and think it is OK to bash others. Even in the name of God.

Let's pray for God's enlightenment, and mercy. May God bless this country, protect us from our enemies, and help our leaders.

4,007 posted on 06/08/2008 4:53:54 AM PDT by mgist (Thus in Psalm 103, we pray, "Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hear)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4006 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
I will only point out that rape is not about sensual or erotic pleasure. It is about power.

*************************************

In that case, what do you call someone who, knowing that a woman is betrothed to a man, approaches her and asks for her permission to “inseminate” her ?

4,008 posted on 06/08/2008 5:30:04 AM PDT by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3961 | View Replies]

To: mgist; Dr. Eckleburg
I believe this and the question of "Mary giving consent" goes to the foreknowledge of God.

Rom. 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Becky

4,009 posted on 06/08/2008 5:37:01 AM PDT by PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3918 | View Replies]

To: enat
I think maybe you misunderstand what I was saying. I was not presenting an argument, so I don't see how what I presented could be a circular argument.

Believe in what? It is a circular argument, like “proof texting”. It is similar to fides quereas intellectum. Faith in what?

What you report of what Adler says is the basic Catholic line. He may have been an agnostic, but he was a pretty Aristotelian one, and it's down the middle Aristotle/Aquinas to think we can prove that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster, aka "The Great Hoo-Hoo in the Sky", but we can't known much about Him except by His self-disclosure.

But back to your response:

Do you believe your parents love(d) you? Do you believe it is generally a good thing for parents to love their children? Do you believe your opinion about what's good or not matters? Do you believe that "matters" in that sense, refers to anything that is true or is in anyway meaningful, or is or should be meaningful to anyone else?

Do you believe that the arguments and questions rolling around inside your head bear any relationship to reality?

If you believe they do, then the implications might bear some examining.

4,010 posted on 06/08/2008 6:13:00 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4003 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
So if as you say it is true that Alamo-Girl “eschews the principle of non-contradiction, so reductios wouldn’t work with her,” I definitely can see her point. Indeed, I share her conclusions: Such “reductios” only go so far, and then they simply suspend, fade away, “into thin air.”

Or not.

;-)

4,011 posted on 06/08/2008 6:43:59 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3993 | View Replies]

To: Marysecretary

I’m only considering the import of his own words.


4,012 posted on 06/08/2008 7:31:53 AM PDT by Petronski (Scripture & Tradition must be accepted & honored w/equal sentiments of devotion & reverence. CCC 82)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3996 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Quiet morning so far. Nice to have a little peace.


4,013 posted on 06/08/2008 7:45:30 AM PDT by big'ol_freeper ("Preach the Gospel always, and when necessary use words". ~ St. Francis of Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4012 | View Replies]

To: mgist
Thank you for sharing your insights and testimony, dear mgist!

I have lived in different countries and traveled fairly extensively. I have NEVER seen the anti-Catholic hate or simple rhetoric that exsists in this country. For those that argue otherwise, simple google search Pope-devil, will show you. Scary people out there.

In any case, what I find amazing is that this anymosity is almost identical to that of the hate-America crowd in the world. It also ranges from benign to scary, and it is identical in so many ways.

By comparison, how many countries out there have Protestant roots?

Here is interesting source on Primary Source Documents pertaining to early American history. The Protestant influence is unmistakable.

Among them, The New England Primer is most telling. Not only for the founders but for most of our history as a country, it was the primary schoolbook and it included the Westminster Catechism. Students were required to memorize it. First published around 1690, the New England Primer has been republished as recently as 1996 for homeschoolers.

Here is the text of the 1843 edition. In particular, note the section on the "Burning of Mr. John Rogers" which says in part:

MR. JOHN ROGERS, minister of the gospel in London, was the first martyr in Queen Mary's reign; and was burnt at Smithfield, February the fourteenth, 1554. His wife, with nine small children, and one at her breast, followed him to the stake, with which sorrowful sight he was not in the least daunted, but with wonderful patience died courageously for the gospel of JESUS CHRIST.

p. 25

A few days before his death, he wrote the following advice to his children:--

Abhor that arrant whore of Rome, And all her blasphemies, And drink not of her cursed cup; Obey not her decrees...

IMHO, it takes a very long time for a people to recover from perceived wrongs especially when it has been educated not to forget. Some Southerners today still resent the "war of Northern aggression" - some Orthodox still resent the Vatican seizing their beloved icons - and some Protestants still resent the persecution of their forebears.

You also said:

Let's pray for God's enlightenment, and mercy. May God bless this country, protect us from our enemies, and help our leaders.

I join in your prayer.

To God be the glory!


4,014 posted on 06/08/2008 8:07:21 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4007 | View Replies]

To: mgist
Rats, I forgot to mention a current politically relevant example of children being educated not to forget a perceived wrong: Black Liberation Theology (Rev. Wright et al)
4,015 posted on 06/08/2008 8:19:31 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4014 | View Replies]

To: enat; betty boop
My apologies. I left a very important point out of my post last night.

Applied to molecular biology, information is the reduction of uncertainty (Shannon entropy) in a receiver (or molecular machine) in going from a before state to an after state.

By appearances, life happens in contradiction to thermodynamic entropy.

Throw a live bird, a dead bird and a cannonball from a tower - the live bird musters itself and flies away, the dead bird and cannonball crash to the ground and both achieve entropy albeit over much different lengths of time.

Shannon entropy in living things is reduced by the successful communication of a message. The thermodynamic "tab" is paid as the molecular machine goes from a before state to an after state.

In the domain of science - because it limits itself by "methodological naturalism" - there is no known source for information in the universe.

We Christians of course know that source to be Jesus Christ, the Word of God, Logos, by Whom and for Whom all things exist.

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence. For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.– Colossians 1:15-20

To recap, these are some of the "open" origin questions for science:

1. Origin of space/time.

2. Origin of life.

3. Origin of inertia.

4. Origin of information

5. Origin of conscience (sense of right v wrong, good v evil, etc.)

6. Origin of consciousness (including decision making as well as awareness)

To God be the glory!

4,016 posted on 06/08/2008 8:39:37 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4005 | View Replies]

Comment #4,017 Removed by Moderator

To: Mad Dawg

” I was not presenting an argument, so I don’t see how what I presented could be a circular argument.”

I apologize. It would appear we were talking past each other. I was not responding to an argument, just an observation concerning the two phrases.


4,018 posted on 06/08/2008 10:06:53 AM PDT by enat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4010 | View Replies]

To: enat; Marysecretary; 1000 silverlings; OLD REGGIE; Alex Murphy; Gamecock; wmfights; ...
I don't mean to be rude but what difference does the church I attend or if I don't attend any church make to any discussion?

You've apparently just signed on to Free Republic. It's fairly standard procedure in these religious discussions for a person to offer what his religion is so that we can all better understand the debate and where each of us is coming from.

If you choose not to say what church you belong to or what faith you hold, that's your prerogative.

But don't think many of us will engage in a discussion with someone who is not honest about the questions they're asking or the positions they're putting forth. It's a waste of time. For all we know, you could be a Muslim or a scientologist or an atheist.

Are you a Roman Catholic or a Protestant? Or do you still refuse to answer that question which, to the best of my knowledge, every one of us has answered forthrightly?

FYI, I'm a Presbyterian.

4,019 posted on 06/08/2008 10:30:03 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 4002 | View Replies]

To: mgist
I have lived in different countries and traveled fairly extensively. I have NEVER seen the anti-Catholic hate or simple rhetoric that exsists in this country. For those that argue otherwise, simple google search Pope-devil, will show you. Scary people out there.

I assume you missed Northern Ireland. Two way hatred by the way. And the many places in Central America where Protestant converts are still persecuted.

Simple Google searches will bring thousands of hits. Within the past few days I posted a direct quote of a Pope and gave the Vatican.va link. One of the "non-Catholic" haters (by a "I am a victim" definition) searched the direct quote through 138,000 google hits and found hate and porn sites apparently to "prove" I searched hate sites for "dirt". It proved nothing except you'll find trash if that's what you are looking for.

For an exercise do a simple google search on Protestant-heretic, review the 213,000 hits and you'll find hatred directed towards Protestants. What does this prove? NOTHING!

Is it just possible you mistake rejection of Catholicism as hatred?

When the Jehova Witness or the polite pair of Mormon Missionaries knock on your door and you dismiss them, politely or otherwise, as a non-Christian cult is it because you hate them?

How often do you proselytize amongst strangers and aquaintances, as you do here, and are dismissed out of hand. Is it hatred? If that is in the forefront of your thought you'll find it. (My personal thoughts.)

4,020 posted on 06/08/2008 10:32:43 AM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am most likely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4007 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 3,981-4,0004,001-4,0204,021-4,040 ... 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