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.

[tiki]

Berating you for posting Scripture is spam but I didn’t hear anyone whine at the list post which was really spam from an anti-Catholic website.

BTW, are there anti-Protestant sites? Just curious.

[mgist]

All major nations and religions have a leader. They hate Bush, they hate the Pope, the hated Jesus.

John Chapter 15

It was not you who chose me, but I who chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit that will remain, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name he may give you. This I command you: love one another.

"If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, and I have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you. Remember the word I spoke to you, 'No slave is greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. And they will do all these things to you on account of my name, because they do not know the one who sent me.

[MarkBsnr]

***The statement was made that none of the Deuterocanonical verse was to be found in the NT.

Not so. Please be more careful.***

Shall I go back and find the actual post? Why don’t I? Obviously memories are inadequate and the intake of lithium is insufficient.

***
The Worship of Mary? (An Observation) [Open]

Friday, June 13, 2008 12:38:17 PM · 5,371 of 5,540
Dr. Eckleburg to MarkBsnr; John Leland 1789; fortheDeclaration; Uncle Chip; Quix; Alex Murphy; Gamecock; ...

The Apocrypha never claims to be inspired. Nor is the Apocrypha ever quoted in the New Testament, not even once.
The Jewish canon, the early church, Josephus, Melito, Origen, Eusebius, Hilary, Jerome, Cyril, all rejected the Apocrypha as outside the accepted, inspired canon of Scripture....***

Reggie, Reggie, Reggie. The record stands. Your claim is rejected. Your statement is wrong and mine is right.

Any comments? You might want to consider your post in which you asked for a Lutheran Bible after I informed you that Luther had added “alone” to faith in deliberate error, instead of a German version of Luther’s translation. You still have not replied as to why you would do such a thing.

[MarkBsnr]

***Berating you for posting Scripture is spam but I didn’t hear anyone whine at the list post which was really spam from an anti-Catholic website.***

I like to leave the whining to the whiners. The Bible Believers (tm) ignore huge swathes of the Bible, normally preferring misinterpretation of Paul to Jesus.

I have asked the good Dr. E. to provide a list of verses that prove predestination to hell, but she has been unable to do so. A feeble misinterpretation of James (who would never postulate such a thing) is the best that she has been able to come up with.

[tiki]

I’m sure the claim was made on an anti-Catholic website and someone took it as gospel and reposted it without checking for veracity.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“It is impossible to research what doesn’t exist. THE LIST DOESN’T EXIST!”

Papal lists do in fact exist. They have been compiled, researched and published by historians. You yourself were discussing an interregnum which you could only believe existed if you believed there were accurate papal lists. Which is it? Is it only accurate when you want to point out an interregnum or is it accurate when other people use it too? It would help if you were consistent. If you don’t believe papal lists exist, then don’t rely on them for your chronoloy, Old Reggie. Be consistent.

[Petronski]

Your mockery is noted.

[OLD REGGIE]

The problem is a confusion of tactile apostolic succession with the succession of the papacy. If the apostolic succession is broken we have an ecclesiological problem.

Please see #5523. The "old" guy said "In fact, I don't believe this is "official" teaching of the Catholic Church. I think the claim rests solely on the line of Bishops."

Yet there has been at least one "expert" who seems to claim otherwise. Even to the extent of inventing a "no time" theory.

[MarkBsnr]

***I’m sure the claim was made on an anti-Catholic website and someone took it as gospel and reposted it without checking for veracity.***

I’m simply amazed that serious Christians would actually accept the teachings of English government bureaucrats over the Church.

I’ll bet that they fly the flag and revile King George and shout with joy at the recounting of the Boston Tea Party and the ride of Paul Revere, yet they have willingly pinned their own souls to the corkboard of the theologies of men.

Many conservative Christians sneer and despise the government in Washington and yet imperil their souls by clutching English bureaucratic memoranda to their heaving and burning bosoms. It makes no spiritual sense whatsoever.

The brightest angel is making a lot of headway.

[Mad Dawg]

BTW, are there anti-Protestant sites? Just curious.

here

[Mad Dawg]

BTW, are there anti-Protestant sites? Just curious.

here

[vladimir998]

Exactly right! For some reason that is lost on the anti-Catholics.

[tiki]

LOL, I meant real anti-Protestant not pro-truth.

[Mad Dawg]

Well, I don't get what fallacious (as opposed to just 'false') about the “unbroken line” . I don't know what the proposition is and I don't know what the arguments are, and I don't see what it has to do with anything.

Who exactly is claiming an “unbroken line”, and what does the claim mean?

The discussion smells to me of rope-a-dope.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Yet there has been at least one “expert” who seems to claim otherwise.”

Incorrect. I never claimed otherwise even once. You are claiming there is no apostolic succession, no papal succession. I have said there are both. You claim that there is no papal succession because of interregnums. I have said, repeatedly, that time gaps between papal reigns is not an issue because the office of pope exists as long as the Church does.

“Even to the extent of inventing a “no time” theory.”

I invented no such theory, but you have tried desperately to invent it and claim it is mine. As of yet you have not been able to make anything even appraoching a logical argument on this. You have not demonstrated how an interregnum somehow makes papal succession go away when the Church remains very much alive throughout the interregnum. You have no managed to explain how an interregnum supposedly does anything at all to an office that exists if there’s someone in it or not.

[Mad Dawg]

LOL, I meant real anti-Protestant not pro-truth.

You know, I'm not as young as I used to be. Could you remind me of the difference?

ONLY kidding ....

[OLD REGGIE]

(MarkBsnr) "***The statement was made that none of the Deuterocanonical verse was to be found in the NT."

(Dr. Eckleburg) "The Apocrypha never claims to be inspired. Nor is the Apocrypha ever quoted in the New Testament, not even once."

Reggie, Reggie, Reggie. The record stands. Your claim is rejected. Your statement is wrong and mine is right.

Is English your native language? No quotations. No instance wherein the verse in question is exclusive to the Apocrypha. NOT ONE!

[OLD REGGIE]

You are truly consistent. Misrepresentation is not a virtue.