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.

Oh, not again. I have personally refuted this list way toooooo many times!

The earliest version of such a list I know of is on page 210 (unpaginated page actually) in Zacchello’s Secrets of Romanism, 1948 [1958]. I actually have a collection of anti-Catholic books including Zacchello’s. This list has several incarnations and has been refuted hundreds of times online. Here are just a few examples of errors:

“1. Prayer for the dead and the sign of the cross. 310 AD.”

This shows up in Zacchello’s list as “Prayers for the dead. 300”

In any case, both lists are wrong. Prayers for the dead date back to BEFORE Christ as PROVEN by the second book of Maccabees 12. Also, the mindless twit, whoever he was, who compiled this list apparently never heard of the tombstone of The tomb of Abercius of Hieropolis in Phrygia from well before the year 300 which reads, “Let every friend who observes this pray for me.”

But why let Jewish and Christian scripture and Christian archeology get in the way of a good smear against Christ’s Church, right?

“4. The mass adopted as a daily celebration. 394 AD”

Huh? Anyone ever read Acts 2:46? And St. Cyprian mentions daily communion and he was dead almost a century and a half BEFORE 394.

“5. The worship of Mary and use of the term “mother of god”, originated at the council of Ephesus. 431 AD”

No worship of Mary, and the term Theotokos was already used in the third century by Dionysios of Alexandria in a letter around 250.

“6. Priests began dressing differently than the laity. 500 AD”

You mean priests never dressed differently in the Old Testament? Sheesh!

“8. The Latin language to be used for worship and prayer in church imposed by Pope Gregory I. 600 AD”

Fascinating. Zacchello says “Worship in Latin Language 600” Notice that now the list says “church imposed”? Imposed on whom exactly? Was anyone in the Western world offering Mass in any other language than Latin in the Catholic Church in 600? And on whom did Gregory “impose” this exactly?

Anyway, you get the idea. The list is bogus. It is filled with errors and distortions and quite frankly is only believed in by twits who know so little about history or the use of BOOKS that they are easily fooled into believing this claptrap.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Catholic_Inventions.asp

http://www.catholic.com/library/More_Catholic_Inventions.asp

the list destroyed!: http://hometown.aol.com/philvaz/articles/num4.htm

and again, destroyed here: http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/traditions.html

In the earlier section [of Acts], the “witnessing” of the Twelve, as recorded from 2:5 to the end of chap. 12, was to “Jews and proselytes” (2:10) alone; “unto you (Jews) first (3:26), &c. Their subject was that Jesus (”the Nazarene”) is the Messiah; cp. 2:31, 36; 3:18, 20; 4:10, 26; 5:42; 8:5, 37 (see Note); 9:20, 22.

At Damascus, after his “Conversion”, Saul (Paul) “preached (Gr. kerusso) Jesus in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God”, and proved “that this is very Christ”, i.e. Jesus as the Messiah. There was no proclamation to Gentiles as such (see 11:3). The preaching of the Word was to the Jews only (11:9), f5a and to the Gentile proselytes, that the crucified “Nazarene”, Jesus, was in truth the Messiah (see Note on 10:48). The duration of this witnessing was about 15 years.

The second part of “Acts” records the apostleship of Paul, and his “witnessing”, which was to Jews and Gentiles alike. He was the “chosen vessel” separated by the Holy Spirit “to bear My Name before Gentiles and Kings, and sons of Israel” (huion te Israel, 9:15). His subject was “Jesus and the resurrection” (17:18). Not, be it marked, Jesus as Messiah, but Jesus (Saviour-God), raised from among the dead, and made the federal head of a new race of beings by resurrection, as announced in Ps 2:7, with which comp. 13:32-39.

This “witnessing” lasted the 15-16 years (see 3 above) of the labors of Paul and those associated with him till the imprisonment in A. D. 61. And to the Jew was given priority of hearing the message (13:5, 14, 42, 43; 14:1; 17:1, 10, 17; 18:4, 7, 19, 26; 19:8).

Throughout the whole period of the “Acts”, the witnessing was accompanied by the miraculous gifts promised (Mark 16:17, 18). Cp. 3:7, 8; 5:5, 10, 15, 16; 6:8; 19:6, 12; 20:9-12; 28:3-6, 8, 9. At the close these gifts ceased, as is plain from the significance of Phil. 2:26 (A. D. 62); 1Tim. 5:23 (A. D. 67); 2Tim. 4:20 (A. D. 68). See Ap. 180. Thenceforward, the privilege of proclaiming and “witnessing” (Isa. 48:10; 44:8, &c) was taken from the Jew, and “the salvation of God” (see Note on Isa. 49.6) was “sent to the Gentiles” (28:28). The proclamation is now by witnesses taken out from among “all the Gentiles upon whom My Name is called” (15:17), including of course the Jewish members of “the body”.

Having now before us all the “sequence of fact” (cp. also the Structure, p. 1575, and Ap. 180), we can trace “the progress of doctrine”, the development of dispensational teaching in Acts, as well as in the complementary “Church” Epistles of Paul, and the limitations of the strictly Hebrew Epistles. Our Lord’s words in John 16:12, 13, are precious, and they are precise (see Note in loc.).

The Gospels record what the Lord “began to do and teach” (1:1); after His resurrection He continued “speaking of the things pertaining to the Kingdom” (Ap. 112); and after His Ascension the teaching is carried on by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the truth (John 14:16, 17, 26; 15:26), Who was to guide (lead on) into “all the truth” (see Notes, John 16.12,13).

During the “Acts” period, believers were guided into much truth, truth in advance of what had previously been revealed. They were instructed in much that they had been unable “to bear” before the coming of the Holy Spirit to instruct them. But not even yet had they been guided into “all the truth”. This was reserved, and not permitted to be revealed, until the public proclaiming of “the kingdom” had ended, after the close of the “Acts”. (see Notes on the Epp., specially Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians.)

Then it was, at the commencement of this present interim period during which “blindness in part is happened to Israel” (Rom. 11:25), that “the church which is His body” (Eph. 1:22, 23) began to be formed “to the praise of the glory of His grace” (Eph. 1:6, and Note on 15:14). As above stated, and as the facts show, this church did not begin at Pentecost as is so commonly taught and believed.

_________________________________________
I thought you would appreciate these comments from the Companion Bible, Appendix No. 181

1. I don’t consider the Roman Edifice “Christ’s Church” any MORE than I consider The First Baptist of Hootenholler “Christ’s Church.”

2. Methinks there’s a lot of slippin N sliden about the list.

3. Macabee’s prayers for the dead justifies the RC edifice’s? LOL! ROTFLOL! GTTM! What other Pre-Christian stuff is going to be used to justify all manner of silliness on the part of the political RELIGIOUS power-mongering committees in Rome?

Confession time for me . . . I’ve been privately taken to task by a dear sister who rightly enough shredded me up one side and down the other for my flipant catty mention of XX and XY impoverishments of Parochial educationi as I was tweaking back some tweaky RC posts . . . The dear sister noted that men also make estrogen etc. etc. etc.

She’s right enough I’ll just say I’m sorry for using overblown/wrong biology to justfy being catty, flipant and tweaky.

I repent and will endeavor to be more kosher next time . . . at least about the facts!

***Actually, ftD rather pointedly judged the condition of my soul and repeated himself over a number of posts on another thread. If you reject the grace of God and follow instead, the faith/works gospel of the RCC or anyone else, you are not saved. (Gal.1:8-9) There is only one true Gospel (Eph.2:8-9)*** Point the 1st: You repeatedly stated in rather contentious prose that you KNEW the state of my soul and that you KNEW that I’d go to hell. Point the 2nd: You repeatedly state that you follow the gospel of misunderstood Paul rather than the Gospel of Jesus.

And if you reject the grace of God, as you state you have, you are (according to the Gospel I believe) going to Hell.

What is so complicated about that?

That is what the word of God says (Jn.3:36)

Two different Gospels, only one is right, choose the wrong one and end up damned.

Why this should upset anyone is baffling.

If you believe your Church has the true Gospel (faith plus works) you shouldn't be upset about anything I say about your eternal state, I am not upset about anything you say about mine!

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.