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.

(Rhetorical)

Matthew 20:26-28

“But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
“And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
“Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.”

“Even as the Son of man came . . . “ Is there one single preacher from any church or denomination visible on earth today who is ministering “even as the Son of man.”

Is there one preacher from any church or denomination visible on earth today is preaching the same message the Son of man was preaching when He walked on this earth? If they think that they are, perhaps it is because they have redefined the terms for their own purposes.

Who can see the installation of a “pope” (If the word “pope” could not be used, what Biblical word would be used?) in Matthew 16? There is a man there who will be called “Holy Father?” Peter (is it believed?) would have accepted the appellation, “Holy Father?”

Can anyone provide five New Testament cross references to Matthew 16 that indicate why the words there are teaching the installation of a man into ANY OFFICE? Where is there an OFFICE or position mentioned in Matthew ch. 16?

A perpetual office at that? How is any perpetuity of any OFFICE taught in Matthew ch. 16? Logically, if Matthew 16 is teaching a perpetuity of OFFICE, then shouldn't Peter himself should be getting as much OR MORE attention than Mary?

In all the cases where it is taught that people should appeal to Mary, why not also, or instead, to Peter? Why not teach that Peter, as well, was somehow immune to the sin nature. Or, that upon his “conversion” mentioned in Luke ch. 22, he entered a sinless state. Why not teach an “assumption” of Peter, unless that would deminish from the relics no Christian was ever instructed in Scripture to fool withy? Those kinds of things could be rationalized in religious dogma just as easily as anything spoken of Mary.

Why should not Peter be the chief individual in the presence of Christ who performs all for the salvation of people attributed to Mary? Or at least side-by-side with Mary?

Where is any office mentioned in Matthew chapter 21? It might be said that Jesus Christ paid more attention to Peter and favored him above the others. If that is any reason to create an office, then should not the Apostle Paul be given that office? Should not Paul should be the Vicar of Christ in the New Testament.

Actually, according to 2 Corinthians 5:18 to 21, are not all believers IN CHRIST'S STEAD. Are not ALL children of God in this age Vicars of Christ? If any passage in the New Testament teaches such a thing as “vicars,” it would be 2 Corinthians 5:20, “WE PRAY YOU IN CHRIST'S STEAD.” Vicar of Christ means in the place or stead of Christ. Shouldn't I be able to see Paul as the “Vicar of Christ” just as soon as I would see Peter in such a position? But in truth, every last single genuine child of God left on this earth is “vicar of Christ” as long as they are here.

And did not Paul make it to Rome with a Biblical record of having arrived there? Peter? I see no record at all. And if Peter were in Rome? When? WHEN? Was Peter the pope in Rome at any time while Paul was still living? Would they have been somewhat of comparable age? If Peter was the Bishop in Rome, why was he such a very poor pastor who, evidently, never visited the members of his church who were in prison. Paul mentions quite a few people when writing from his jail cell, but never mentions Peter at all!

And Christ showing some special attention to one apostle over another? After Acts chapter 11, how little is there of Peter. Paul was converted to Christ in Acts chapter 9. His ministry expanded very rapidly. After Acts 15 you don't hear of Peter again, do you? Unless he is mentioned by Paul? From that time on it is the extremely prolific and productive ministry of Paul.

Paul wrote fourteen epistles.
Peter wrote how many?

Did not Paul write SEVEN TIMES the number of Epistles as Peter? If one apostle seems to be exalted and magnified, what would be his name?

Paul said, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, “I MAGNIFY MINE OFFICE.”(Romans 11:13) Did Peter ever speak such words?

Actually, if I were to select a place where I thought Peter was installed as a pope, I think it should be when he walked on water. And the installation would be when Christ's hand touched Peters. Is that not great stuff?

And what rapturous thankfulness is fostered by such an apt pupil!

The saints be praised.

No, no! That won’t do. I’m a Protty . . .

The fantasies be fanciful!

There. That’s better.

Tee hee.

And a one and a two . . .

And a gibbbbbbbbberish here
And a gibbbbbbbbberish there
And Mildred’s 3 behind the sofa.

And a gibbbbbbbbberish here
And a gibbbbbbbbberish there
And Uncle Farnsworth’s heading for the barn
While Mildred’s hunting gibberishes behind the sofa.

And a gibbergibberish here
And a gibbergibberish there
And Uncle Farnsworth was
Assaulted by a flock of
Very black gibbergibberishes
The moment he opened the barn door.

Whereupon Mildred stuck her head up
From behind the sofa with it
All covered in gibbbbbberishes.
Alas her son watching
THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL on the Telly
Told her they were just dust bunnys—to try again.

But when she flipped red striped bloomers up
And dust bunny covered head down to search
Yet again for gibbbbbberishes
Jr Farnsworth wished he’d suggested, instead
That she go chase the rabbits out of the rutabagas.

The end. Red stripes and all.

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.