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.

It was he that Jehovah declared He knew when he was being knitted in the womb (a very special designation not given to any other)...

Wow, does THIS ever illustrate the different approaches to Scripture. We think JHVH knows everyone when they are being knitted in the womb. We use that quote as part of our pro-life propaganda.(Not saying this to be contentious, but just to register my surprise and consciousness of a need for further study and dialogue.)

We think the same, but as a matter of fact, Jeremiah was the only one (AFAIR) to whom that honor was extended by Jehovah's own declaration- A special circumstance, it seems to me, and interesting, if often overlooked...

It's not just the "fiat", [...] but the whole pregnancy, [...] between mother and intrauterine child. It is the gazing into that face which we long to see. It is all of motherhood.

[...] the natural longing of any mother to hear her child laugh and speak, to see his first smile, to — please think about this — have him run to her and leap into her arms, and to enfold him in her arms -- to have that, and then to go back and recast that sentence with the masculine pronoun capitalized because its antecedent is God the Son of God ...

These are all things which touch our hearts too. I, as a Protestant, have written a song dealing specifically with the motherhood of Mary and her interaction with a growing boy, destined to be the Savior of all mankind. The construction of the song is designed so that the listener has no idea who she is until she is grieving at His imminent death, whereupon her "eyes would keep on turning to the nails that pierced His feet". I have never played that song without every person in the place weeping openly, and especially every woman.

It should be remembered amidst the rancor over this subject, that Protestants revere Mary as the mother of Christ too... We would call her "Blessed Among Women", even as Gabriel's message declared we should. We would call her Mary, Mother of Christ. But our reverence of her does not rise to the level of exaltation that seems to daily rise from the RCs here. She is but a woman, born in sin, saved from sin by her own Son, and laid in a grave. We love her as the mother of our Lord, but she is only, and exactly that.

It is the extended graces and attributes, really thought to be made of whole cloth by many on this board, that cause our divisiveness and rancor.

Honestly Dawg, I have participated in these discussions for at least a month or two, and I have been offered but the slightest of evidences to support this super-sized characterization of Mary. The nature of the evidence is so minute and so taffy-stretched, that if you and I were to be offered such evidence by another religious group, it would certainly be considered to have a gnostic flavor, and would be rejected outright.

Please show me *any* major player on the game board that isn't able to be fully vetted within the Scriptures, and numerous times... The only one I can think of is Melchizedek, but He is almost certainly Christ Himself- Yet here we are given one of the most diminutive characters who, as a player, is hardly more than a bit part after Jesus birth and childhood. She is treated with no real deference by the Apostles, or the crowds, and shows nothing, *nothing* of her glorious attributes throughout the breadth of the Texts. Yet somehow, we are being asked to believe her to be 'all that and a can of corn', glorious and immortal, when the evidence of such is entirely missing! Please, my FRiend, at least you could admit that much!

From the outside looking in (and I say this in an analytical sense only, not meaning offense), those that believe in the Magdalene doctrines have more standing in the Word than this Marian overture. How can we lend you (RCC) credence without accepting or at least entertaining those meager thoughts as well? Forgive me, but it borders upon absurdity. The only answer you (RCC) have to that question is "Because we say so, and we ... real Church... Apostolic... Magisterium... while you... heretic dogs... spit... PATOOEY!"

It is from that standpoint that I would plead the case for sola scriptura. Without the Scriptures being held inviolate and paramount, there is *no* final arbiter of Jehovah's intentions toward humanity. What better expression of His intentions than His very own Holy Words?

Owing to what we consider to be the HUGE gift of being the mother and, uh, primary care-giver of God the Son of God, we see her as not only "blessed among women" (which is a semitic superlative) but the most blessed of any of us.

A wonderful sentiment, but also nothing more than an assumption. It is these assumptions and imaginings which are knit together into the Marian doctrines... But there is no evidence. None of these things are given to Mary in the Scriptures, but they *ARE* given to Christ! Almost every one! Surely you can see that an outsider would perceive this as taking from Christ to give to Mary, can't you?

But I'm a daddy, and my child was so sick it looked like she'd never learn to speak. I can tell you I have longed for few things as much as for hearing her say ANYTHING. And the day she said, "I love you, papa,"

An excellent witness. God is good.

As I say I don't think this forum is much good for persuading, so that is not my intent. I do want to present a comprehensible picture which will enable, for the purpose of understanding only, a "willing suspension of disbelief" just long enough to get the flavor of our thought and piety.

I will not change your mind either, and I know that. I would be content with an admission that the evidence for Marianism simply falls apart without the backing of Catholic Traditions. It is there that our real trouble lies, and in that, the RCC must convince us unwashed Protestants of it's authority... An unlikely prospect, to say the least.

Good day to you, FRiend.

Yeah, the nice, dispositive, "says right here" Scriptural type "evidence" is scanty. I don't see how anyone could seriously argue otherwise.

And this goes where this particular fool fears to tread, back into the relationship of tradition and Scripture. It doesn't seem strike me as gnostic because I don't see it as sprung full grown from the head of Zeus or of some particular guru (nor does it denigrate creation and creatures, but that's a digression).

The world view, the 'what we bring to the table' of Scripture as the sole judge and arbiter of the Church... I can see how in that view a LOT of what we do and teach seems sort of flakey (at the kindest!) But, well, I have said this before and taken some heat (more heat than light) for it, but to me it is as though IHS and the Spirit started an avalanche which has been tumbling down a huge slope ever since increasing in size and complexity, swallowing trees, people houses, cities ..... ,and within this "chaotic" (in the scienterrific sense) thing the Bible shapes and corrects and guides and judges and provides a forming tension or orientation within the dynamic system.

So it's a different view. And one way that difference shows up is the point of what JHVH said to Jeremiah, and what to make of it.

This WIDE difference is one reason I think our conversations should be notorious for their courtesy. It is as though we Catholics were a kind of quaint delegation from Mars, and we should probably spend more time asking, "What do your people think of this or that and how do you do the other?" than fulminating and breathing threats and slaughter.I would be content with an admission that the evidence for Marianism simply falls apart without the backing of Catholic Traditions.

[whispers among the Martian delegation, bzzz bzzz bzzz, finally one green and betentacled (spell check does not recognize this word - drive on) delegate steps forth, courteously wiggles his antennae, and says:] How about this: Someone who approaches the Scriptures without the organizing and hermeneutic of catholic tradition [note singular, though I'm not sure why - caffein, brain,... you understand] will not find in them what we teach about Mary.

Thanks for your patience in this exchange. Will you join me in a glass of Brxgxft? We think it quite delicious.

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.