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.

[Paved Paradise]

I’ve heard that excuse before and if you think me laying flowers on a grave that contains my father or my grandfather, etc. is tantamount to me laying flowers at a stone carving someone made of him that I keep in my house, I guess you and I are on completely different wavelengths.

I see no connection at all.

[MarkBsnr]

***Thank God for the early “birds”. They seemed to tell it straight unlike what developed CENTURIES later. In Clement of Alexandria case calling people who fall for group think and not studying the Scriptures THEMSELVES are called “slothful”. Imagine that. I have plenty more but the RCC seem to think 4th CENTURY and on “fathers” should be held in higher regard.***

When did the Church tell people to not study Scripture? There is more Scripture read and there is more praying to God in a Catholic Mass than at any Protestant worship service that I have ever attended.

So. 4th century is the cutoff line for you is it?

Better put your Bible away. Pope Damasus didn’t get his list together until nearly 400 AD and Pope Innocent didn’t declare it until 405, after reviewing the Council of Hippo (393) and the Council of Carthage (397). Can’t have it. Put it away.

You can have the Apostle’s Creed since that developed in halfway through the second century, but you most certainly cannot have the Nicene Creed (325) and forget the Athenasian Creed (sometime after 451) altogether.

I’m glad that you were able to shed all that excess baggage of the Church in later years. Happy theology, my friend.

[OLD REGGIE]

Wait a minute. Are you one of those people who actually thinks the “Unbroken line of popes” as you call it is dependent upon time? ROFLOL! Amazing. You actually think an interregnum somehow effects an unbroken succession? LOL! I can’t believe it. Yet another straw man. You attack what you don’t even know and wonder why we can’t see what you think only you can see. In reality only you can see it because you’ve dreamed it up. The unbroken line of popes has nothing to do with the time between popes holding office. It has EVERYTHING to do with the holding of the office. Each and every pope admitted holding the same office - being a successor of Peter. It doesn’t matter how many centuries are between the pope and St. Peter or between any two popes! It doesn’t matter one bit whether there was a pope in 305. It only matter that there was a pope before then and after then both holding the same office and leading the Catholic Church. There is ALWAYS a time gap between one pope and another. Sometimes the gap is days. Sometimes it is years. No few years years or months or days, however, effects an “Unbroken line of Popes”, however, because it is the popes themselves who make it unbroken by what they hold as an office not WHEN they hold it.

Once again, I have been surprised. Just when I think I have seen or heard every sort of silly, ill-informed, even bizarre attack against Christ and His Church some Protestant somewhere comes up with a new one which is usually nothing more than misunderstanding wrapped in ignorance. Wow. I haven’t laughed that hard in a while. Thanks. Seriously, I’m out of breath from laughing so hard. You actually thought an interregnum effected the papal succession! LOL!

Actually I expected this type of ad hominem attack. Those without an answer must either feign anger or laughter. No matter, the rant is transparent.

The entire early list, beginning with the imaginary "Popehood" of Peter is a fiction with no historical proof whatsoever. Now the argument that the time gaps, many consisting of 2-4 years, between "Popes" is meaningless.

That's ok. Fiction is a reputable profession. Claiming fiction is fact is another story.

No few years years or months or days, however, effects an “Unbroken line of Popes”, however, because it is the popes themselves who make it unbroken by what they hold as an office not WHEN they hold it.

This is amazing. Let's see if I understand.

1. There is no Pope for four years.
2. The dead Pope fills the office.
----------------or--------------
3. The as yet unnamed Pope fills the office.
----------------or--------------BR> 4. Fact isn't important. We say so and that's it!

Carry on.

[MarkBsnr]

I don’t believe that I’ve ever hit the abuse button before. I thought that the abuse button was for, well, reporting abuse. Silly me.

[Paved Paradise]

I never assume. Okay, you are a Catholic. I enjoy discourse with all Christians. You apparently didn’t like my choice of words (i.e. “excuse”).

Bottom line, you think these things are the same and I see worlds of difference.

[andysandmikesmom]

Thanks for that little story...I can relate...my older son is buried in a cemetery 750 miles away from us...so we dont get down there, but every few years or so..it is a very tiny cemetery, very few burials there per year, and usually when we go we are the only ones there...when we do go, we take our lunch, eat it there at the cemetery, on the steps leading into the cemetery....and then the hubby and I talk about our son...we do that anyway, but being so close to his grave at those times, we talk and think about him all the more...

And then we put flowers or a plant on his grave....yes, it is just his earthly body in that grave, but still, being so close to that earthly body, tho it is dead and buried, we somehow feel closer to our son at that time...

Your story reminded me of our lunches with our son...thanks...

[Paved Paradise]

Well for whatever it’s worth, the time to me is meaningless as well, I have more questions about the time there were TWO of them holding the same office.

[OLD REGGIE]

No, actually it’s common sense. The papacy is about an office, not time.

Of course! When you have multiple years passing before a new Pope is "elected", times filled with murder and intrigue, it is necessary to invent a "timeless" time.

No, the popes are infallible in faith and morals and only under certain defines circumstances. You have the problem understanding this.

Wonderful! I have finally found one who knows without question which Encyclicals, Bulls, whatever, are "infallible". Please list them.

[MarkBsnr]

***I think if we look at the creeds (The Nicene Creed and the Apostles’ Creed) and let them define for us what our Christian faith is about we can be safe. The cults always have something out of whack.

In the meantime, the reason the creeds were developed was specifically to answer questions in the early days when all of these other heresies started getting legs (the gnostics, arianism, etc. - I can’t remember some of the other stuff floating out there but there was plenty).***

Certainly they are profitable and useful and very instructional and cannot be ignored or taken away from in any way. It’s just that they are not all encompassing.

I don’t think that, given some rather intense posting, that every Christian here believes everything in the Creeds, even the Apostle’s creed.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth,

And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried; He descended into hell. The third day he rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From there he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, I believe in the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

For instance: how many non Catholics believe that Jesus descended to hell? I’m met a bunch who don’t. Vociferous, they were, too.

How many here believe in the communion of saints?

Newadvent.com tells us:

The communion of saints is the spiritual solidarity which binds together the faithful on earth, the souls in purgatory, and the saints in heaven in the organic unity of the same mystical body under Christ its head, and in a constant interchange of supernatural offices. The participants in that solidarity are called saints by reason of their destination and of their partaking of the fruits of the Redemption.

How can someone believe in the communion of saints if they don’t believe in either Purgatory or that those in Heaven mean anything to us here?

[tiki]

I am on dial-up and I mean slow dial-up. When people put a lot of pictures in a thread it takes forever to load. There is one person who pings me with a lot of pictures and I do as the RM suggested until the ping is off the first page.

I don’t see how text would slow up any reception.

How could they read FR?

BTW, I’ve never asked anyone to remove a picture or not post one to me. I just get up and do something else while the post loads or I go to another post.

[MarkBsnr]

***But, but, but....I thought we Catholics were “abuse-button” pushers, sitters, whatever. :)***

I’m probably a little further out towards the edge of propriety than the referees of the website would like posting-wise. But I think that the mods do a decent job of corraling those who pass that boundary. So I don’t like to bother them overly much. They’re looking over our shoulders anyway.

[MarkBsnr]

***No, actually it’s common sense. The papacy is about an office, not time.

Of course! When you have multiple years passing before a new Pope is “elected”, times filled with murder and intrigue, it is necessary to invent a “timeless” time.***

I see. So if an institution is without a CEO for some time, then it becomes an invalid one. A head coach leaves a team, and a new head coach is not named immediately, therefore the team needs to be disbanded.

Fascinating logic.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Of course! When you have multiple years passing before a new Pope is “elected”, times filled with murder and intrigue, it is necessary to invent a “timeless” time.”

Wrong again. It’s not a “timeless time”, but a timeless office. The office exists as long as the Church exists.

“Wonderful! I have finally found one who knows without question which Encyclicals, Bulls, whatever, are “infallible”. Please list them.”

No. Ask me which one is and I will tell you, but I am not going to spend my time going through thousands and sorting them into one category or another. There are lists online if you really want them. Go for it. You can do research, right? Oh, that’s right. Probably not. Too bad.

[MarkBsnr]

***I am on dial-up and I mean slow dial-up. When people put a lot of pictures in a thread it takes forever to load. There is one person who pings me with a lot of pictures and I do as the RM suggested until the ping is off the first page.

I don’t see how text would slow up any reception.

How could they read FR?

BTW, I’ve never asked anyone to remove a picture or not post one to me. I just get up and do something else while the post loads or I go to another post.***

That sounds, well, rational and balanced. How can you possibly be Catholic? :)