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.

I think the Protty perspective is much less fragile.

1. It’s not based on some pretended monolithic edifice centuries old encrusted with fossilized this’s and that’s within and without.

2. It’s not based on a helter-skelter hodge podge of mangled history; mangled leadership; mangled structures—some wonderful and some horrific all pretending to be as pure as the driven snow in a seamless fairy tale from 400 years before the organization’s existence until the present.

3. At worst, Protty groups are reduced to sending the Protty individuals back to searching Scripturs for themselves like the Bereans. One can do a lot worse than that.

4. However, I agree to this extent—Prottys who idolize their organization; denomination; set of distinctive dogma . . . etc. would likely be more in a similar boat. Prottys in the SAME organizations who put God supremely first and subject ALL the organizational pontifications to Scripture and confirmation or disconfirmation by Holy Spirit—would not likely be fazed in the least.

5. I think the same is likely true of some RC’s who put all the RC pontifications and dogma to confirmation and/or disconfirmation of Scripture and Holy Spirit and quietly go merily on their way without making a fuss—worshipping within the structure regardless of their convictions of what’s askew—merely because they feel that’s where Holy Spirit still has for them to reside in the Body of Christ. I doubt they’d be all that moved by the RC edifice’s fantasies being ‘outted.’

The following is biblical prophecy. Look it up for yourself. As much as it feels nice, we can't take our salvation for granted. The Old Testament, and New Testament, are very clear that we have to OBEY GOD. Not as easy as it sounds. Our walk of faith is up to us, only our God can judge what we did with the gifts he gave us, only God can know if we are truly sorry.

Sirach Chapter 23

LORD, Father and Master of my life, permit me not to fall by them! Who will apply the lash to my thoughts, to my mind the rod of discipline, That my failings may not be spared, nor the sins of my heart overlooked; Lest my failings increase, and my sins be multiplied; Lest I succumb to my foes, and my enemy rejoice over me? LORD, Father and God of my life, abandon me not into their control! A brazen look allow me not; ward off passion from my heart, Let not the lustful cravings of the flesh master me, surrender me not to shameless desires. Give heed, my children, to the instruction that I pronounce, for he who keeps it will not be enslaved.

Through his lips is the sinner ensnared; the railer and the arrogant man fall thereby. Let not your mouth form the habit of swearing, or becoming too familiar with the Holy Name. Just as a slave that is constantly under scrutiny will not be without welts, So one who swears continually by the Holy Name will not remain free from sin.

A man who often swears heaps up obligations; the scourge will never be far from his house. If he swears in error, he incurs guilt; if he neglects his obligation, his sin is doubly great. If he swears without reason he cannot be found just, and all his house will suffer affliction.

There are words which merit death; may they never be heard among Jacob's heirs. For all such words are foreign to the devout, who do not wallow in sin.

Let not your mouth become used to coarse talk, for in it lies sinful matter. Keep your father and mother in mind when you sit among the mighty, Lest in their presence you commit a blunder and disgrace your upbringing, By wishing you had never been born or cursing the day of your birth.

A man who has the habit of abusive language will never mature in character as long as he lives. Two types of men multiply sins, a third draws down wrath; For burning passion is a blazing fire, not to be quenched till it burns itself out: A man given to sins of the flesh, who never stops until the fire breaks forth; The rake to whom all bread is sweet and who is never through till he dies;

And the man who dishonors his marriage bed and says to himself "Who can see me? Darkness surrounds me, walls hide me; no one sees me; why should I fear to sin?" Of the Most High he is not mindful,

fearing only the eyes of men; He does not understand that the eyes of the LORD, ten thousand times brighter than the sun, Observe every step a man takes and peer into hidden corners.

He who knows all things before they exist still knows them all after they are made. Such a man will be punished in the streets of the city; when he least expects it, he will be apprehended. So also with the woman who is unfaithful to her husband and offers as heir her son by a stranger. First, she has disobeyed the law of the Most High; secondly, she has wronged her husband; Thirdly, in her wanton adultery she has borne children by another man. Such a woman will be dragged before the assembly, and her punishment will extend to her children; Her children will not take root; her branches will not bring forth fruit.

She will leave an accursed memory; her disgrace will never be blotted out. Thus all who dwell on the earth shall know, and all who inhabit the world shall understand, That nothing is better than the fear of the LORD, nothing more salutary than to obey his commandments.

Much of the bogus history on that list can be resolved by doing some research and some calm thinking. First go through the list and find all the words chock full o' vibes, like "imposed".

Then, actualyl take a look at say Munificentissimus Deus and Ineffabilis Deus where the process leading up to the official definition is described.

You guys are all over the tumultuous history of the Church. Fine, so think about whether a Pope with two wits to rub together is going casually to "impose" a dogma on an unwilling Church.

Or see if someone can come up with an official papal or conciliar "definition" that isn't in response to crisis.

WHich is more likely, (1) Out of the blue without any provocation or controversy Trent is going to "add" the Apocrypha to the OT. (2)With a unexpectedly durable schismatic movement going on, one which proposes a Canon of the OT which differs from the list thitherto generally accepted, so the Church, sigh, heaves it's massive bulk up, and say, "Nope, THIS is the OT."

I don't know about you, but I was told that one of the main reasons fro nailing down the NT canon was the Marcion put up HIS list of books that are okay. (I was told Luke and parts of the Pauline corpus.) So the Church had to respond and to make her stand on the matter known.

Just the way this guys writes the list is enough argument for me that massive huge grains of salt are required.

Were I to grant the, to me, somewhat "paranoid" in the popular sense notion that the Vatican periodically gets rid of the embarrassing stuff, even then we have enough data to show that this list is bogus, not so much in the raw facts (though I doubt many of his dates), but in the spin.) in naming them.

I may not be right about much, but this guy is off the wall.

It was Newman, no fool, (and, I am told, against promulgating Papal Infallibility) who said, "To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant."

Of course, I don't expect that in itslef to persaude anybody of its truth. But this guy was a learned and scholarly man If even they aren't conclusive it's hard to think that there aren't some arguments to give Protestants pause when they see what presents itself as a slam dunk outline of history that PROVES the Papists are wrong. It's all just too good (too neat, too pat) to be true.

I can understand that your stated perspective and exhortation could soften SOME . . . historic . . . jolts.

I’m sorry, Dear Bro, but I fail to see how it could do more than that.

1. On the one hand, we are assured that the RC edifice existed ~400 years before our view of reliable history allows that it did.

2. Further, we are asked to swallow the preposterousness that the RC edifice has been a homogeous body of unchanging dogma from the beginning when that’s historically the furthest thing from the historically accurate truth.

3. Then we are asked to fantasize some worse than tenuous connection between all the fantasized legend based dogmas and Scripture when we have a very hard time evening IMAGINING the remotest connection with Scripture, much less a logically valid one supporting a given dogma.

4. Even if 10% of the list were proven . . . I think a highly likely minimum . . . many of the contentions of the RC edifice logically bite the dust. They just don’t wash. NO amount of mental gymnastics in the most charitable light will contort them into validity and Scriptural truth. I just can’t even imagine it.

And, further, it boggles my mind that even 3rd graders can swallow this stuff unthinkingly. That you seem to is one of the most amazing conundrum’s to me. You are very bright with seemingly a great deal of fairness and spiritual authenticity and potency—a lot of which I greatly admire.

The only thing I can imagine that makes any sense to me is that somehow the bossom of the RC edifice was much more attractive for whatever personal/relational/existential reasons than the one you’d lived in theretofore. And, to whatever degree it has resulted in you walking closer to God—Praise The Lord.

However, the mangled history thing is a real deal breaker, to me. It boggles my mind that anyone with an IQ above 50 could swallow the RC edifice version of mangled history. It just does. I’ve given the RC’s the benefit of the doubt as much as I could stretch my reasoning mind to allow at different times in my life. The evidence on their side has ALWAYS come up grossly wanting—particularly on the issue of historical accuracy.

I suspect that John Leland’s list is probably more likely a very anemically brief summary of what’s likely truer if ALL such issues were listed.

1. It’s not based on some pretended monolithic edifice centuries old encrusted with fossilized this’s and that’s within and without.

Most of that, the parts that aren't so tendentious as to be useless for adult discourse, amounts to, "Eeeew! Icky! It's an earthen vessel! Take it away!"

Some Protestant schema have all the rigid internal consistency of a schizophrenic's argument.

We say the "notes" or "marks" of the Church or "one, holy, catholic, apostolic." We make no claims for tidiness.

Periodically, not often enough to suit me, but it's not MY Church, a breath of fresh air comes through, and blows away a few cobwebs.

all pretending to be as pure as the driven snow in a seamless fairy tale from 400 years before the organization’s existence until the present.

I don't know of any educated and thoughtful Catholic who would describe Church history like that. If the idea that we claim that is keeping you from learning what we really teach, you are being scared by phantoms and imaginary hobgoblins.

I keep saying this, but maybe it's one of those facts which strikes too closely at a pet argument to be acknowledged. Anybody who knows the sketchiest details of Catherine of Siena's life has got to drop any notion of simon-purity and seamlessness.

What is the secondary gain of thinking the Church denies the shameful and luxurious popes the corruption around the time of the Reformation, the almost Catharist disdain for creation of many in the last century, when, as a matter of fact if you just get a subscription to First Things you'll see that there's plenty of admitted dirty linen hung out on lines which are often in the front yard.

In Matthew 16, Peter did not understand the sufferings of Christ. It was the very first time that our Lord made such direct reference to going to Jerusalem and suffering and dying.

That “first pope,” that “vicar of Christ” rebuked Jesus Christ and said that that would not happen to Him.

Of course, if it were not to happen, Peter, and the rest of us would have to go to Hell forever, because there would be no Atonement for our sins, and no reconciliation made between sinners and God. The “pope” is called SATAN there, too, then.

And we have the very peculiar instruction to the “pope” and the “co-popes” in Matthew 16:20.

“Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.” —— A very odd command for a “pope” and a “New Testament” church, is it not? Is that also instruction for today . . . . “tell no man that He is Jesus the Christ ????? Is that in any church's doctrine today?

And in subsequent announcements of Christ's sufferings, the “vicar,” the “pope” was as blind as blind could be, but it was because God had deliberately hid it from him and the vice-vicars, and they did NOT understand it.

“Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.
“For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on:
“And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.
“And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken. (Luke 18:31-34)

Matthew 19:28

“And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

You will notice that this is given subsequent to Matthew 16:13-19.

The ministry given to the “pope” and the eleven “co-popes” is definitely ISRAELI-based work. Hence, a reading of Acts chapters 1 through 5 particularly, the focus is on the Nation of Israel.

The witnessing of the Twelve, as recorded from Acts 2:5 to the end of chapter 12, was to Jews and to prosylites (2:10) ALONE - see 3:26; etc. I recommend that you read Acts chapters 2, 3, and 4.

There is no preaching in Acts chapters 2, 3, or 4 (or 5, or 6, or 7, or 8, either)to ANY New Testament church as we know it today. EVERY WORD is preached to ISRAEL AS A NATION. You see, the “pope” knew his commission.

More later.

Don't eat up this “pope” stuff for anything that exists on earth today, unless, of course, the “pope” wants to move to Jerusalem, where Peter stayed.

1. On the one hand, we are assured that the RC edifice existed ~400 years before our view of reliable history allows that it did.

It would help if you guys got your attacks coordinated. Are you saying the Church was started at the Council of Nicea or some other time? (I'll duck the "RC Edifice" v. "Church" issue for now.)

But I already addressed this. It's not empirically verifiable one way or the other, according to the exact nature of our claim. Put simply, we see the Church developing in response to the crisis of becoming legal. We still see the Church developing. You guys see a discontinuity. We see a change of one thing moving into a new "phase".

2. Further, we are asked to swallow the preposterousness that the RC edifice has been a homogenous body of unchanging dogma from the beginning when that’s historically the furthest thing from the historically accurate truth.

"Cardinal Newman. Development." Response to controversy (Think about that, we're saying there were disagreements that were settled, at least a little. Chalcedon sure didn't put the whole thing to rest, but it moved it along.) "Unpacking" "working out the implications" E.g.: We don't say that Peter believed in Transubstantiation. (I can just hear him, "Trans- say what?") We DO say that he believed in what we call "the real presence" (I know that's debatable, but that's not the point right this minute.) We would say that the debate leading to Thomas's articulation and the council's declaration are the development, the unfolding, in response to controversy of the quod semper, ubique et ab omnibus belief in "Real Presence" There IS a change, an acknowledged change. To us it looks like the change from an acorn to an oak tree, and is the "same" sort of in the way the acorn is the "same" as an oak.

(3)is to vague for me to address. Frankly, I think that without Tradition one cannot easily go from Scripture to The Assumption. I don't have a problem with that. I think Scripture testifies to the value and validity of tradition. I think the Protestants often try to force us into a relationship with Scripture that is like theirs and then complain when we don't fit in that mold.

(4) is even vaguer. Give us the proposition you think would do it, and maybe we can try to address them. (it would be a lot of work, though.)

You write often about mangled history and now you say you've studied a lot of it. I never see any actual instance of mangling. I see the kind of conclusion that I describe above, which, to me, comes down to a tautology surrounded by straw men. That is, IF the Church is the Church, then what happened in the 4th or 5th Century or whenever was just the earthen vessels dealing badly with being legal and "established". IF there was an apostasy at that time, then, well, yeah there was an apostasy.

And a lot of the things you say we say are themselves mangled versions of what we do in fact say. To me it seems that a lot of these arguments take one piece of what we say, dress it up in the most outlandish attire, lop off a few identifying features, and then say that we are using a rubber dictionary when we don't recognize it as part of what we said.

You say "Same doctrine." We say "Newman, development, response to conflict -- NOT same in every respect." You say, "pure all the way." We say "infallible, but most certainly NOT impeccable, Catherine yelling at the Pope to grow up, the Borgias, etc."

I close with the message of Pope Adrian VI, made publicly through his Legate, to the Nuremberg Reichstag in 1523:

We freely acknowledge that God has allowed this chastisement to come upon His Church because of the sins of men and especially because of the sins of priests and prelates[emphasis added]... We know well that for many years much that must be regarded with horror has come to pass in this Holy See: abuses in spiritual matters, transgressions against the Commandments; indeed, that everything has been gravely perverted.
(he goes on to say, "... we will take all pains to reform, in the first place, the court of Rome, from which perhaps all these evils take their origin.")
page 75, Adam, Roots of the Reformation, C H Resources, Zanesville, 2000 (translated by Cecily Hastings and published originally in 1956)

Can we do this carefully?

That “first pope,” that “vicar of Christ” rebuked Jesus Christ and said that that would not happen to Him.

(BTW I'm not really clear that Peter is "installed" as Pope before Easter Eve or the "Do you love me?" episode or even Pentecost. It might be the future Pope whom Jesus calls Satan.)

What exactly is strange about this? Instead of alluding to an argument, could you please make the argument explicitly?

You see, one or two Catholics are familiar with this passage and we see no contradiction whatsoever between it and the (future?) Papacy of Peter or to the infallibility of that Papacy when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith or morals.

It may be that Peter's sinfulness contradicts YOUR idea of Papal Infallibility. But it may also be that your idea of Papal infallibility is not the one taught by the Church, who in that case would also disagree with your idea of Papal infallibility.

I am quite relieved to see that your perspective is a lot more rational . . . at least to you . . . than I’d thought it remotely COULD be. Thank you very much. I much appreciate that. It puts me much more at ease about this particular Bro than I’d been able to feel for some time.

I think I’ll have to ponder some of your statements though that may not produce any useful response either.

BTW, I never kept the specifics very straight and certainly not with dates. I sort of registered such things as—oh, hmmm, that sort of thing happened way, way, way back or way way back or way back and was xyz level of preposterous, to me. And, it kind of lodged in my mind that the RC edifice as it has come to operate; insist on being called and construed etc. more or less 400 years after Christ.

I don’t think I can help on the edifice thing. I have a very deeply ingrained bias that the Roman insistance that the RC edifice is the ONLY UNIVERSAL CHURCH OF CHRIST is wholesale in error . . . arrogant . . . UNBiblical etc. I haven’t come up with a more accurate and less troublesome label. It is merely, akin, to me, to RC’s insistance on calling themselves the CATHOLIC Church.

Your exclusionary rationalization of John 15:16 fits with the cloistered, arrogant exclusivity of the Roman priesthood made up of "another Christ."

Instead, the priesthood of all believers is the truth of the Bible whereby all believing Christians make up the church of Christ on earth, chosen by God for His glory. Christ instructed His followers to make disciples throughout the world, and those disciples are included among those He is addressing here.

"If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.
Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples." -- John 15:6-8

This is the rule of faith for all Christ's disciples, not just the apostles. Yes, Christ was speaking directly to His apostles, and in so doing, speaks to all those who believe in Him, as John 17 further explains. Just as He chose His Apostles, so He chooses us, as Paul reminds us...

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love -- Ephesians 1:4

Was Paul contradicting Christ, or following Christ in Ephesians 1?

I find it amazing how Rome restricts the majority of Christ's ministry to 11 men, thereby denying His very personal ministry to all believers. Keep reading John, Mark. As you say, context is important...

"I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.
Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." -- John 17:9-10,20-23

Is Christ not speaking of you here, too, Mark?

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.