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]

English word “church” (“kirk”; Kurion)

Did you mean "kuriakon"?

[Quix]

In case it hasn't been noticed . . . I leave the more scholarly responses to those better recently read on the topic. I just enjoy highilighting absurdities and poking at haughty, self-righteous prissy-ness based on . . . smoke and mirrors and hollow power mongering and politically advantageous legends.

[Quix]

Don’t bring up history unless you back it up with SOMETHING

Written like an authentic rep of the professional hyper history manglers of the RC edifice! LOL.

[John Leland 1789]

You are correct. “kuriakon.” Typing too quickly with a mini keyboard on a Samsung Q1. And then it wants to change to Chinese key strokes on its own in the middle of a word, I have to hit ctl+space to set it back, and then I’m missing the middle of words if I don’t go back and check it again.

[MarkBsnr]

***Scripture tells us what the role of the Church is.

http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/189/Ancient_Homily_on_Mary_s_Assumption____St._John_Damascene.html gives a Church Father homily on the Assumption.

That’s your big problem. You can’t distinguish Scripture from Mariology.***

Cutting and pasting to give a different spin to my postings? That’s not like you, Reggie.

Anyhow. Scripturally, the Church is the pinnacle and the foundation of truth. The Church, Reggie, not any haphazard collection of men.

[Quix]

I respect tons about you Dear heart.

May your faith in Jesus Christ continue to sustain you well.

[MarkBsnr]

I see. So the greatest Doctor of the Church is irrelevant unless and until rollo tomasi approves of some snippet.

If your Bible contains 1 Tim 3:15, then you have the means to understand the role of the Church.

If you cannot accept some of the Church’s pronouncements, then be consistent and reject them all. If you reject the Church, then reject the Canon as well as the Creeds. Invent your own - you’re doing that now.

[MarkBsnr]

Of the Protestant theologies of men? No, not really.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“In case it hasn’t been noticed . . . I leave the more scholarly responses to those better recently read on the topic.”

Then there’s at least one right thing you’ve done.

“I just enjoy highilighting absurdities and poking at haughty, self-righteous prissy-ness based on . . . smoke and mirrors and hollow power mongering and politically advantageous legends.”

Your posts are the absurdity. When Protestants can’t compete in the arena of idea or history or theology they post strings of invective to cover their own sciolism. “Prissy-ness”? So, having facts and knowing history is now reduced to “prissy-ness” by the losing side, the Protestant side? It figures. You can’t make an argument or prove your point, or even have a decent showing so you might as well do what Protestants do best - protest.

[MarkBsnr]

***Guess I didn’t read them that way.***

I was pointedly (on another thread) and repeatedly informed that that individual had judged the state of my soul and that I was going to hell forever. I don’t know how anyone else could have read them any other way, but then, looking at the extremely inventive fables of men that make up the various Protestant theologies, I suppose that it is possible.

[MarkBsnr]

Estrogen?

I thought Parochial schools taught basic biology.

If RC’s have so much difficulty telling the difference between XY and XX . . . that could go a long ways toward explaining the plethera of RC’s who seem to have a genetic difficulty in understanding the difference between...***

Those of us who have a Y chromosome and make use of it don’t giggle like schoolgirls. That behaviour is well documented amongst many here who might at least purport to be male.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Written like an authentic rep of the professional hyper history manglers of the RC edifice! LOL.”

Here we see the typical Protestant fear of being called on something cloaked as anti-intellectualism. If a Protestant brings up something from history and clearly misunderstands it - or even falsely states what happened (e.g. about Copernicus) - then there’s something wrong with a Catholic (who also happens to be a historian) calling him on it? So you don’t believe that errors whould be noted or corrected, right? You must be getting ready to vote for gaffe master Obama with that attitude. But thanks for so perfectly modeling what Protestants are really like in debates about factual events - they could care less about what actually happened. Don’t bother them with the facts when a helpful myth makes them feel warm and comfy in their self-righteousness.

[MarkBsnr]

Calling your support staff?

If you do not follow the Church, then you either make up your theology or you adopt someone else’s. And I find, wandering through the various theologies that make up the Protestant tapestry that they are tailored to the founder’s (or subsequent leaders’) personal inclinations.

Calvin, for instance, was hard and flinty and his theology reflected it. Wesley, on the other hand, was a mild man, who loved people. His theology reflected it. Joseph Smith was a con artist who fooled people and his theology reflected it. The Campbells wanted leadership especially the son. And so on.

The claim is a personal relationship with Jesus. The evidence is the construction of God in one’s own image.

[MarkBsnr]

***Either you accept all of the Church’s pronouncements or you accept none. You cannot pick and choose.

= = =

Except that it seems like most RC’s do exactly that . . . picking and choosing only the decisions from only the centuries that affirm the CURRENT STATUS QUO.***

What bizarre universe do you inhabit? The Catechism is clear. All Catholics have the faith presented to them. It is not theirs to deconstruct.

[Mad Dawg]

Don't forget the "Parsing" Game. It goes like this:

1. You (or some document, or, more likely, some sentence wrenched out of context in some document) say something.
2. I misunderstand it, misconstrue it, misrepresent it, and use it to show some off the wall point about how vicious you are.
3. You explain how the meaning of words, syntax, and context preclude the bogus meaning assigned to the words by me.
4. I laugh heartily and say you are "parsing" and proclaim that soon you'll be discussing what the meaning of "is" is.
5. Onlookers congratulate me for my devastating rejoinder.

Parker Brothers will be coming out soon with the deluxe edition, with a copy of Fowler's Modern English Usage included.

[MarkBsnr]

***Their basic difference with us is not that we believe too little of the Bible, but that we believe too much.***

Their Bible is abridged and mutilated; they do not have the Church - they only have some of the documentation and teaching and they, in their heart of hearts, resent it very much.

As the little children instinctively know that they need, so do our brethren; even as little children actively resist what they need (such as naps), so do our brethren resist us.

***My God have mercy on all of his children but especially those in most need.***

May God have mercy on us all: Christian, heretic, apostate, and heathen.

[MarkBsnr]

Mary, the Mother of God The first and most fundamental teaching about Mary is based on her relationship with Jesus, that of being his mother. It is on this reality that her special dignity is founded, and from it flow all her prerogatives. Now Mary is not the Mother of God as such; she was rather the mother of God the Son incarnate. United in the one person of Jesus Christ are two natures, divine and human. Mary, being the mother of the one person of Christ, is in this sense the mother of God. During the first few centuries of the growth of the Church, there arose three Christological heresies which bear on the issue of the divine maternity. Docetism (110 A.D.), while acknowledging the divinity of Christ, rejected the reality of his human nature. Arianism (320 A.D.), on the other hand, accepted Jesus' humanity but denied that he was the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity. Both of these heresies repudiated the dual nature of Christ and the mystery of the Incarnation. If Docetism was correct, Mary could not be called the Mother of God, since she would not be the mother of God the Son incarnate. If Arianism were true, Jesus was not divine, and Mary could not be considered the mother of God. At the First Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.), the first ecumenical council convened by the Church, both of these positions were condemned, and the reality of Jesus as true God and true man infallibly defined. The consequent document is known as the Nicene Creed. After Nicaea a third Christological heresy arose, called Nestorianism (428 A.D.), which proposed two persons in Christ, rather than two natures in one person. Mary would then be the mother of the human person of Christ only, and therefore not the mother of God. Nestorianism was condemned by the third ecumenical council, held in Ephesus (431 A.D.). In substance, the council infallibly declared that Jesus was "according to his divinity, born of the Father before all ages, and in these last days, according to his humanity, born of the Virgin Mary for us and for our salvation . . . A union was made of the two natures . . . In accord with this understanding of the unconfused union we confess that the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (, God-Bearer), through God the Word's being incarnate and becoming man, and, from this conception, His joining to Himself the temple assumed from her." The foregoing statement is taken from a letter of St. Cyril, bishop of Alexandria (444 A.D.), who presided over the Council of Ephesus. It is known as the "Creed of Union" or the "Creed of Ephesus." Prior to Ephesus, however, the Church Fathers wrote of Mary's relationship to Jesus, the Word Incarnate. St. Irenaeus (202 A.D.), bishop of Lyons and pupil of Polycarp, St. John's disciple, declared, "The Virgin Mary . . . being obedient to His Word, received from the angel the glad tidings that she would bear God." St. Ephraem of Syria (373 A.D.) noted, "The handmaid work of His Wisdom became the Mother of God." St. Alexander (328 A.D.), bishop of Alexandria and a key figure at the Council of Nicaea, wrote that "Jesus Christ . . . bore a body not in appearance but in truth, derived from the Mother of God." St. Athanasius (373 A.D.), secretary and successor to Alexander, reflected upon "the Word begotten of the Father on high" who "inexpressibly, inexplicably, incomprehensibly and eternally, is he that is born in time here below, of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God." St. Cyril (386 A.D.), bishop of Jerusalem, referred to "the Virgin Mother of God," and St. Gregory of Nazianz (382 A.D.), bishop of Constantinople, strongly asserted, "If anyone does not agree that Holy Mary is the Mother of God, he is at odds with the Godhead." St. Gregory of Nyssa (371 A.D.) proclaimed the virginity of Mary, referring to her as "Mary, the Mother of God." St. Epiphanius (403 A.D.), bishop of Salamis, writes of the "Holy Savior who came down from heaven . . . took on humanity along with His divinity . . . incarnate among us, not in appearance but in truth . . . from Mary, the Mother of God." The monk Leporius (426 A.D.), a disciple of the great Augustine, expressed his faith that ". . . the Only-begotten was incarnate in that secret mystery which He understood, for it is ours to believe, His to understand." Finally, just prior to the Council of Ephesus, St. Cyril of Alexandria wrote, "I have been amazed that some are utterly in doubt as to whether or not the Holy Virgin is able to be called the Mother of God. For if Our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how should the Holy Virgin who bore him not be the Mother of God?" St. Cyril also wrote these words of praise: "Hail, O Mary, Mother of God! You did enclose in your sacred womb the One Who cannot be encompassed. Hail, O Mary, Mother of God! With the shepherds we sing the praise of God, and with the angels the song of thanksgiving—Glory to God in the highest and peace on earth to men of good will! Hail, O Mary, Mother of God! Through you came to us the Conqueror and triumphant Vanquisher of hell." Mary, Ever Virgin The virginal conception of Christ was upheld by the early Church. St. Ignatius (107 A.D.), bishop of Antioch and reputed hearer of the apostle John, wrote, "The virginity of Mary, her giving birth, and also the death of the Lord . . . three mysteries loudly proclaimed, but wrought in the silence of God." And again, "According to the flesh, Our Lord Jesus Christ was born from the stock of David; but if we look at the will and the power of God, He is the Son of God, truly born of a virgin." St. Justin the Martyr (165 A.D.) observed that the "power of God, coming upon the Virgin, overshadowed her, and caused her, while yet a Virgin, to conceive." St. Irenaeus (202 A.D.) referred to Jesus as "the Word Himself, born of Mary who was still a Virgin." He adds, "The belief in the Virgin Birth has been handed over to the Church by the Apostles and by their disciples, the same as the other truths of the Faith." St. Hippolytus (215 A.D.), in questioning candidates for baptism, inquired, "Do you believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Spirit, of the Virgin Mary?" St. Ephraem (373 A.D.) extols Mary as the Virgin who became a Mother "while preserving her virginity." And St. Ambrose (397 A.D.), bishop of Milan, proclaimed Christ who was "born of a virgin," and adds, "Mary was a Virgin not in body only, but mind also . . . so pure that she was chosen to be the Mother of the Lord. God made her whom He had chosen and chose her of whom He would be made." St. Augustine (430 A.D.) observed, "The nobility of the Child was in the virginity which brought him forth, and the nobility of the parent was in the Divinity of the Child." The Patristic writers also had no difficulty in asserting Mary's perpetual virginity. For example, St. Athanasius (373 A.D.), bishop of Alexandria, who was, as a deacon, active at the First Council of Nicaea, stated that Jesus "took human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary." Didymus the Blind (380 A.D.), mentor of the great Jerome, wrote of Mary, "Even after childbirth, she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin." St. Epiphanius of Salamis (403 A.D.) commented that "to Holy Mary, Virgin is invariably added, for that Holy Woman remains undefiled." Against the heretic Helvidius, St. Jerome (420 A.D.) spoke, "You say that Mary did not remain a virgin? As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a Virgin son might be born of virginal wedlock." St. Ambrose of Milan (397 A.D.) cites the beautiful prophecy of Ezekiel—"This gate is to remain closed; it is not to be opened for anyone to enter by it. Since the Lord, the God of Israel has entered by it, it shall remain closed (Ez 44:2)." He then comments, "Who is this gate, if not Mary?" Leporius (426 A.D.), monk and disciple of St. Augustine, in a credal statement refers to Christ as the Son of God "made man of the Holy Spirit and the Ever-Virgin Mary." St. Cyril of Alexandria (444 A.D.) remarked that the Word himself "kept his Mother a Virgin even after her child-bearing, which was done for none of the other saints." St. Peter Chrysologus (450 A.D.), archbishop of Ravenna, penned the beautiful words, "A Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and a Virgin she remains." St. John Damascene (749 A.D.), the last of the Fathers, is quaint in his vigorous defense of Mary's perpetual virginity—"Thus the Ever-Virgin remains after birth a Virgin still, never having consorted with man . . . For how were it possible that she, who had borne God . . . should ever receive the embrace of a man? Perish the thought!" In subsequent centuries, Mary's perpetual virginity was defended in various councils, e.g., the fifth ecumenical council held in Constantinople (553 A.D.), and dogmatically defined by Pope St. Martin I at the Lateran Council of Rome (649 A.D.), whose decree was later upheld by the sixth ecumenical council at Constantinople (681 A.D.). This belief also meets the criterion of infallibility in that it has been the constant teaching of the Church. Mary's Sinlessness Early Christian belief always associated Mary with Jesus in the divine plan. The Patristic writers referred to Mary as the "new Eve," who cooperated with Christ, the "new Adam." In the writings of Justin the Martyr (165 A.D.), Irenaeus (202 A.D.), Ephraem of Syria (403 A.D.), Cyril of Jerusalem (348 A.D.), Jerome (420 A.D.), Augustine (430 A.D.), Epiphanius of Salamis (403 A.D.), and John Chrysostom (407 A.D.), Mary is portrayed as bringing life (Christ) into the world, whereas Eve brought death, and Mary's humility and obedience is contrasted with Eve's pride and disobedience. Mary's sinlessness in general was undisputed by early Christian writers. St. Ambrose (430 A.D.) wrote, ". . . Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain." Concerning Our Blessed Lady, St. Augustine declared, "I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sin." St. Ephraem, in a poem addressed to Christ, penned "Thou and thy mother are alone in this—you are wholly beautiful in every respect. There is in thee, Lord, no stain, nor any spot in thy Mother." In praise of Mary, he wrote, "My Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate . . . spotless robe of Him who clothes himself with light as with a garment . . . flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate!" St. Proclus (446 A.D.), Patriarch of Constantinople, wrote, "Mary is the heavenly orb of a new creation, in whom the Sun of justice, ever shining, has vanished from her soul all the night of sin." St. John Damascene spoke of Mary as "preserved without stain." Although agreeing that Mary was sinless in her behavior, the Church Fathers were divided on the question of her inheritance of original sin. Even the great Thomas Aquinas (1274 A.D.) could not resolve the issue; it remained for John Duns Scotus (1308 A.D.) to propose a "preservative redemption" rather than a "restorative redemption" for Mary. The Church took the decisive step on December 8, 1854, when Peter's successor, the venerable Pope Pius IX, infallibly defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. It was by this title that, four years later, Mary identified herself to St. Bernadette at Lourdes. And, in 1954, the first Marian Year was occasioned by the 100th anniversary of the proclamation of this beautiful truth. Mary's Assumption The belief in Mary's resurrection, called the Assumption, is founded, as are all Marian doctrines, on her divine maternity. Liturgically, the feast of the Dormition, or "falling asleep," of the Blessed Virgin, dates to the fourth century. In the fifth century, St. Augustine commented on the feast, "This venerable day has dawned, the day that surpasses all the festivals of the saints, this most exalted and solemn day on which the Blessed Virgin was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. On this day the queenly Virgin was exalted to the very throne of God the Father, and elevated to such a height that the angelic spirits are in admiration." St. Jerome observed, "We read how the angels have come to the death and burial of some of the saints, and how they have accompanied the souls of the elect to Heaven with hymns and praises. How much more should we believe that the heavenly army, with all its bands, came forth rejoicing in festal array, to meet the Mother of God, to surround her with effulgent light, and to lead her with praises and canticles to the throne prepared for her from the beginning of the world!" St. Gregory (594 A.D.), bishop of Tours, declared that "the Lord . . . commanded the body of Mary be taken in a cloud into paradise; where now, rejoined to the soul, Mary reposes with the chosen ones." St. Germaine I (732 A.D.), Patriarch of Constantinople, speaks thusly to Mary, "Thou art . . . the dwelling place of God . . . exempt from all dissolution into dust." And St. John Damascene asserted, "He who had been pleased to become incarnate (of) her . . . was pleased . . . to honor her immaculate and undefiled body with incorruption . . . prior to the common and universal resurrection." Finally, in our own time, on November 1, 1950, Peter's successor, Pope Pius XII, infallibly defined the doctrine of Mary's Assumption into heaven. Mary as Mother of the Church Since Christ is Head of his Mystical Body, the Church, it follows that Mary, mother of Christ, is also mother of that body. As we have seen, the early Church Fathers called Mary the new Eve, in that as Eve was our mother by physical generation, so Mary is our mother by spiritual regeneration, in virtue of her Divine Son's redemption of humanity. In the second century, St. Irenaeus commented that "the Word will become flesh, and the Son of God the son of man—the Pure One opening purely that pure womb, which generates men unto God." St. Epiphanius remarked, "True it is . . . the whole race of man upon earth was born of Eve; but in reality it is from Mary that Life was truly born to the world, so that by giving birth to the Living One, Mary might also become the Mother of all the living." St. Augustine summarized, "The Mother of the Head, in bearing Him corporally became spiritually the Mother of all members of this Divine Head." With regard to Mary's intercessory role on behalf of the members of the Body of Christ, St. Irenaeus remarked, "He who is devout to the Virgin Mother will certainly never be lost." St. Augustine addresses Mary, "Through you do the miserable obtain mercy, the ungracious grace, and the weak strength." St. Jerome wrote, "Mary not only comes to us when called, but even spontaneously advances to meet us." St. Basil the Great (379 A.D.), bishop of Caesarea, declared, "God has ordained that she should assist us in everything!" St. John Damascene prayed, "O Mother of God, if I place my confidence in you, I shall be saved. If I am under your protection, I have nothing to fear, for the fact of being your client is the possession of a certainty of salvation, which God grants only to those whom He intends to save." St. Ephraem beseeches Mary, "O Lady, cease not to watch over us; preserve and guard us under the wings of your compassion and mercy, for, after God, we have no hope but in you!" St. Fulgentius (533 A.D.), bishop of Ruspe, stated, "Mary is the ladder of heaven; for by Mary God descended from Heaven into the world, that by her men might ascend from earth to Heaven." Pope St. Leo the Great (461 A.D.) observed, "Mary is so endued with feelings of compassion, that she not only deserves to be called merciful, but even mercy itself." Epilogue It is evident, then, that Christian devotion to the Mother of our Savior is as old as the Church itself, flourishing during the fourteen centuries prior to the Protestant Reformation. Our contemporary non-Catholic brethren are deprived of their spiritual Mother, who loves them deeply and yearns to have them know of that love. We who have been gifted with this knowledge have an obligation in charity to make Mary known to them and to the world. with thanks to http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/fr90203.htm

[MarkBsnr]

Most, if not all, Protestant theologies depend more upon their authors gazing fondly in the mirror than on Scripture and the early Church.

[MarkBsnr]

***My testing of the spirits came out negative.***

Johnny Walker?

[vladimir998]

You’re right.

It amazes me how Protestant anti-Catholics routinely seem think facts just don’t matter. One of my favorite examples of that is when they insist X proves Y, but they are too poorly schooled to know that Y came first, or that X never existed, or that they had nothing to do with one another. The inquisition was created to stop Protestants - except for that pesky little fact that it existed BEFORE Protestants. The crusades caused Muslims to hate us - except for that pesky little fact that the Muslims were already attacking Christians for more than 300 years BEFORE the crusades so they already seem to have hated us.

I love Fowler’s Dictionary of Modern English Usage by the way. I only wish I could buy a copy of the OED! Well, I can dream...