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.

[Quix]

It is an itneresting spiritual/theological question, though . . .

If God assesses my words as much better than word salad . . . I wonder how He’ll feel about your characterization of them? Fascinating question.

[John Leland 1789]

I was told (about 1978) by an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi who converted to Christ, that there are two books that will never be found in an Orthodox Jewish Temple or Synagogue: (1.) Any Greek translation of the Old Testament (EVEN in Greece), especially the alleged BC Septuagint (probably better dated about 200 AD, according to some masters in MSS evidence); (2.) The O.T. Apocryphal books.

This was later told me again by an elderly Jewish man who was converted to Christ in 1986 at 83 years of age. He told me that Orthodox synagugues world wide conduct their worship in Hebrew, even in Greek speaking countries.

I am not Jewish, nor have I ever been inside of any synagogue in my life. I am wondering if there are any Jewish people (or Jewish background people) reading this who know anything about this. Now, the comments that came to me were about ORTHODOX Jewish worship. I've never discussed these things re Condervative or other Jewish worship.

[Mad Dawg]

Why would a Protestant need a Bible scholar, I thought all they had to do was read it and understand it.

And how does a Sola Scriptura person decide which Bible Scholar to read?

[Joya]

I agree. All praise to His holy Name.

[Mad Dawg]

FWIW, to the best of my recollection, Galileo saw what he thought (and we agree these days) were moons orbiting Jupiter.

In Ptolemy everything orbits around the earth.

What Copernicus did was attempt to show how a helio-centric hypothesis provided a more elegant (fewer steps) explanation of the appearances. Copernicus's problem arose because he persisted in hypothesizing regular circular motion.

Tycho Brahe had an elegant way to preserve geo-centrism by having the Sun orbit around the earth and everything (except, I'd guess, the Moon) orbit around the Sun.

But all these guys were still committed to the Ptolemaic principle of regular circular motion and that was the real crippler in their accounts.

Kepler did the math (and the math had existed since 2nd century BC — Apollonius of Perga On Conic Sections which is the hardest math I've ever done, but it was pretty cumbersome to work with) to show that hypothesizing elliptical orbits with the Sun at one focus of the ellipse did a better job of "saving the appearances".

Newton developed (I won't say invented) the calculus AND hypothesized the laws of Motion and the law of gravity and thus provided an explanation for WHY planets would move in ellipses. So he pretty much polished up heliocentrism.

God said, "Let Newton be,"
And all was light.

[Mad Dawg]

I'm not sure why you mention this, but it seems to me that it is consistent with our hypothesis that a (not 'the') motivating principle behind Jamnia and any possible later Jewish efforts to close the canon was to minimize the amount of stuff that those awful Christians could use.

[Mad Dawg]

Some folks are highly unlikely to be convinced by any amount of facts.

But lissen here, Bro:

You're not giving any facts when asked. You're not giving them a chance to be convinced by facts. You have impressions garnered from some posters and then, it seems, give those impressions more authority than more reasoned and detailed accounts (yes, I flatter myself) which at least I think are truer to what RC-itude really is.

Even supposing your impressions of those unnamed and unreferenced posters to be correct, to reflect the reality of their thought and belief, there is the problem of why one would prefer THEIR account to the accounts of others.

There are so many steps skipped over here, so many things we have to "grant" without evidence. Specifically my current objection is the attribution to the Church or the (alleged but unsubstantiated) opinions of some posters, and the generalization FROM some posters who (allegedly) never admit to mistakes TO the Catholic Church as a whole.

To the contrary argument, I adduced the astonishing apology and pledge of Adrian VI. I also adduce Pope St Pius V (ahem, O.P.) who is known and praised as a reforming Pope.

Thought experiment time: Do we praise reformers who try to reform what does not need reforming? Don't we roll our eyes instead and clench our teeth and wait for them to go bother somebody else?

So if we praise Pius V, O.P. as a reformer, doesn't that mean we think he reformed what needed reforming? And since he is praised for reforming the Church, then that means we think the Church needed reforming.

So it follows that our claims of infallibility for the Church do not, to us at least, imply that we thing the Church is perfect in every respect or never does anything wrong.

So the FACTS, which seem impotent when it comes to warring against some preconceived notions and impressions garnered where wise men fear to gather, are the the Catholic Church does not claim to be perfect in every respect.

Q.E.D.

No, please don't applaud. I'm just doing my job.

[John Leland 1789]

All-in-all, my interest in arguing over the contents of the Canon is extremely limited — real short. It is because I believe that God didn't leave that ultimately in the hands of man. I believe that God, even today, is pro-active in Superintending the preservation of His Words.

There are efforts in Mongolia, China and the Philippines at better translation work. My eldest son is a degreed, trained and experienced linguist, working in Asia. He tells me many stories in which the characters are often very common Christians astounding him and other of the trained ones with an uncanny ability to translate correctly and offer sound advice — common widom — or spiritual insight over the science of the thing.

Whose councils were involved in the past, and who tried to limit this and that for their own benefit, how educated or uneducated people were, is not uninteresting, but the arguments do tend to get too academic, as they make it look like a science classroom where God Himself is unwelcome.

God Himself has His “Personal interests” in the preservation of His Words from generation-to-generation. He does that even when the educated miss it and flub up. He has the power and prerogative to over-rule.

[mgist]

With regards to the Pope, my understanding is that we believe that the Holy Spirit is infallable. Since we believe that the Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit, he becomes infallable. Pope, the man, is fallable.

I may have read that from encyclicals of John Paul II. I wish I could remember.

I found the following from his encyclicals, since it was online I'm not sure how accurate it is, but it is pretty much in line with his writings.

-People outside the Catholic Church and the Gospel can attain salvation by grace of Christ (1990, 1.10).

-People can be saved by living a moral life, without knowing anything about Christ and the Catholic Church (1993, 3).

-There is sanctification outside the boundaries of the Catholic Church (1995, 1.12).

-The martyrs of any religious community can find the extraordinary grace of the Holy Spirit (1995, 3.84).

Our Christian history is facsinating. I imagine it would be hard to understand our beliefs and traditions without understanding our history.

"Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him." Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 (c. A.D. 96).

[mgist]

Today's Gospel Mt 5:33-37

Jesus said to his disciples: “You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, Do not take a false oath, but make good to the Lord all that you vow.

But I say to you, do not swear at all; not by heaven, for it is God’s throne; nor by the earth, for it is his footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Do not swear by your head, for you cannot make a single hair white or black. Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.’ Anything more is from the Evil One.”

[tiki]

They look for the imprimatur? LOL

[Running On Empty]

Nihil obstat isn’t enough?

[Running On Empty]

MD: “...you’re not giving any facts”.
I just knew instinctively that if I waited, someone would point this out, and I didn’t have to wait long.

Thanks for that observation. And I don’t think it’s a case of GMTA—it’s just a valid observation.

[Judith Anne]

Key word, “If.”

[rollo tomasi]

“When did the Church tell people to not study Scripture?”

So I guess there was Scripture before Carthage, well that is a start.

Guess what, the Assumption (Stick to the subject matter) was never “inspired” yet or included ANYWHERE. That officially was declared 1552 YEARS later and the legend was not even “hot” yet at Carthage.

As for your question the Council of Toulouse, Terragona and Pius IV seemed to think otherwise.

[OLD REGGIE]

The same guy is one several different sites. I don’t see how this is an answer to the question, which was about anti-Protestant sites, as distinct from anti-Protestant people.

Quibble if you will whether it is 3 or 4 sites. It is still a one man hate crusade. Hate sites!

[Quix]

I’ll have to chew on your points . . .

Initial response is good points as far as they go . . . but that in the final analysis . . . they don’t go far enough, for me.

[Quix]

I agree with you entirely.

And I think your son’s experience is quite apt.

Thanks.

[Quix]

I’ve known a fair number of folks walking in Holy Spirit sufficiently that some of their more spiritual inputs were considered straight from Holy Spirit, by me.