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.

[OLD REGGIE]

My understanding is that Trent accepted it because it was under attack. Is there a previous conciliar accepting of the agreed upon parts of the OT?

Well, it was under attack by the "Protestants" who were fighting what they believed were unscriptural passages in the "apocrypha" which were being used, among other things, to raise money thru indulgences. Until the Reformation "Apocrypha" hadn't really been an issue or had been canonized by an Ecumenical Council. The Reformation forced the issue and was the direct cause for the action of Trent.

I havn't done any work on the LXX.

I have done very little myself. It becomes apparent right up front that the entire story of the LXX is legend with no basis in fact. Further, the idea of "A" Septuagint is fantasy. No such animal exists. Apologists from both camps make arguments on both sides of the fence. Choose your poison.

The little work I have done on the NT leads me to believe that there are significant variations in texts, the most notorious being the endings of Mark and the "Woman Taken in Adultery", which at least one major text of John does not have. (from memory, I'm supposed to be doing something else now.)

It has long been my opinion that no such thing as a "perfect" Bible exists. I am satisfied; however, that each of the Bibles used by Catholics and Protestants is sufficiently correct.

2 Timothy 3:
[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

[Mad Dawg]

The Bible is pretty clear on calling NO man Father but God.

I would have enjoyed being at your church yesterday for "What's his name's Day."

Call no man Master either.

Does this mean I have to send back my master's degree and stop calling male-type personnel "mister"?

I just have this persistent feeling that the normal Protestant, except for Quaker, interpretation of this rule is, "Anyone but Catholics can call a guy 'Father'." Gotta love them Quakers.

[1000 silverlings]

What have you to do with כִּנֹּרוֹתֵ

I'm having a little trouble with some of your Hebrew, but as to the violins, they're accompanying the opus

[Quix]

LOL

with the Appoplectica in the middle.

Is that the section that drives RC’s into so much

appoplexy that they begin to obsessively finger beads?

[Mad Dawg]

Yes it is.

YES IT IS.

YES IT IS!

OH. Right.

Sorry then.

[Petronski]

Thank you for sharing your sneering mockery of my faith.

[Quix]

Alas . . . at 61 . . . our Shaw and Shakespeare were mostly in Jr High. A little in High School. But they were great fun at the time. And Chaucer! Oh, Dear!

[maryz]

My Hebrew??? Actually, my Hebrew essays in school always got compliments from my teachers, but I posted a line from Psalms.

[Quix]

I highly respect authentic faith in authentic Christianity . . . such as many RC’s demonstrate . . . such as DarthVader;

Heresies, blasphemies, idolatries and seeming attitudes and expressions toward; in support of; in addoration of; in veneration of; in focus on; in applause toward

all such

shall likely continue to trigger satire and the like. Which is mild compared to what Jesus The Christ would say about such.

[MarkBsnr]

***Freepers are nothing like the average RCs that you meet.***

I’ve met one or two Catholics over my years. :)

***They don’t care enough about the bible to know that Marianism is not there. I probably have known 20 or 30 RCs over the last 20 years and none of them studies his bible.***

There are good Catholics and there are bad Catholics. Some are Creasters (Christmas and Easter only) and some really do imitate Christ. Many of the ones that I associate with are better Christians and have a greater knowledge of Scripture than I do.

[papertyger]

Ahhhhh. . . as in factually haughty?

Oh you are the clever one....

[OLD REGGIE]

The charge has been made and more than once. It is possilbe that you may have missed it. "Frequently" is a judgment word.

Please show two such charges by two different "non-Catholics" which will justify your charge of "frequent" claims by anyone that "... only people who go to the Catholic Church can be saved."

It is entirely possible I never participated in a thread where such a rediculous charge was made. I am confident that I, even in my feeble minded state, would have remembered it.

Lacking any proof from you I will be forced to conclude you are a victim of an overactive imagination.

[Quix]

Anyone

Purporting to

mind-read
heart-read

“hate” into a single word, phrase, sentence, paragraph of any of my posts

strikes me as bearing false witness.

Thankfully, My Lord Jesus The Christ knows the score in my heart and my mind.

[Petronski]

I highly respect authentic faith in authentic Christianity . . .

Matthew 7:16

[Quix]

No, no.

I’m quite the bungler.

Mercifully, The Lord God Almighty sends gifts liberally.

[Quix]

It’s encouraging that some RC’s know where that is in The Bible.

Maybe in a few more centuries some of them will begin to get the interpretation and application down a little better.

As I understand it . . . one of the fruits of truth . . . is freedom.

[Mad Dawg]

Even mens rea requires a substantive act. If i were to make little horns at you and think that that would make you sick, I would still be innocent of assault. (I'd be guilty of being a jerk, but, to judge by Congress, that's a good thing.)

In general, I think an idolatrous disposition or intention will pretty much lead to idolatry, but that kind of hig-falutin' spekkerlation does not clearly or necessarily attach to DM's list.P>And your suggested argument implies a kind of double bind. (Schizophrenigenic anyone?) The Church is to blame because people can take much of what she says and make it an occasion of idolatry, but she gets no credit when they don't. AND if she were to try to exercise more control over people's inner intention then we'd hear cries of "Inquisition" and "mind control" and the rest.

If you start with the presupposition that we are wrong, any facts will do.

It is no small matter to judge the inner disposition of people from a different culture from one's own, and yet Protestants eagerly hurl accusations at Catholics, assuming that if they are doing something unfamiliar their intentions must be corrupt.

Oh, and if someone calls a person a barbarian for a bad reason, that does not, in itself, imply that the person is not indeed a barbarian.

[Mad Dawg]

Can I get a dedication for Slash-and-Burn Evangelism?

I think you'll have to go to the Army War College for your dedication.