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.

For precise doctrinal/dogmatic Catholic teaching one must stay as close to the source as possible. Papal encyclicals and other teaching documents, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, amd then known, trusted sources: Doctors of the Church (Aquinas, Augustine, et al.) Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott. The Faith Explained by Leo Trese. The Baltimore Catechism.

While apologetics books are helpful, they ultimately point back to primary sources. They are not a primary source in and of themselves.

I think I understand that.

I’m not very willing to pour over the bulk of the primary sources. I’m asking for a concise authentic presentation of the core of such by an acknowledged expert that is speaking accurately about the core body of RC dogma, beliefs and practices considered current and essential for say the last 30+ years.

It is my opinion that much of what Christianity has thought has been rendered incorrect by events which should be seen as revelation by the Church. What has been murky is becoming clearer, especially since WWII. In the light of that, much of what the Church has believed is certainly wrong.

In other words you believe the Martyrs and the Saints were heretics and Bible canon was decided by these heretics and along comes roamer_1 on free republic to show the world the meaning of the true church and scripture interpretations .

What is the difference between you and all the other false prophets who get that tickled feeling when they read the scriptures?

They also thought they knew the truth above consistent historical Christianity.

I sincerely hope you don't believe the lie satan tells people, in that the the Holy Spirit is leading you to teach against the Catholic Church?

You know what's wrong with that image, allegation, slur, description, whatever?

The fallacy of misplaced concreteness.

Maybe we should work on a "compound" image rather than an edifice. Maybe the cabins at a summer camp?

Did you ever make your own beer? About 8-12 hours after you put yeast in the "wort" it's like the fermentation vat that ate Manhattan! It's got foam and nasty looking stuff, and the bubbling of the fermentation lock sounds like a distant machine gun.

That would be a more better analogy.

The official reason why is the "principle of subsidiarity", which is (more or less) that decisions should be made and actions undertaken at the most local and "lowest" level.

(related principles are, "It's easier to get forgiveness than permission," and "if it ain't OBVIOUSLY broke, don't mess with it, much less attempt to fix it.")

Much to my surprise, my pastor had not heard the chestnut, "I don't believe in organized religion, I'm a Catholic." When I unleashed it yesterday at "chapter" (the monthly meeting of the local mob of lay-Dominicans) he laughed politely, and then it hit him, and he laughed with surprise at the aptness of it.

It is a little known truth that at least among Roman Catholics, we are members of our local Diocese. I was received and confirmed in "The Church of Richmond."

Maybe I said this before, But I remember during the Elian Gonzales mess, some Protestant asked me why the Pope didn't just command the sisters who were giving him refuge for a while there not to hand him over.

I don't think the Pope COULD give that command legitimately. And if he could, he'd have trouble making it stick if the sisters were intent on Handing the poor kid over.

IN the Montesquieu view of gummint, sure the Vatican has some executive powers, but it's much more like a Supreme Court. Yes, the Pope appoints bishops. But consider in a church this large how little power he has in that. He doesn't have a complete dossier on every thought and deed of the clergy who might be considered to be appointed. So he listens to other bishops who might know some of the candidates and the candidates current bishop, and maybe they know some people in common (e.g. my pastor studied with the Pope) and so forth.

But as a political organization, a polity, it's all held together with baling wire and spit.

In the Horatio Hornblower novels I learned that a Commodore has to ASK the captain of the ship where he is to do stuff. Of course, in the English Navy, the captain had better assent.

There's something similar in the Church, in style if not written down somewhere.

What those on the outside read about is "infallibility" and so forth. But on the ground, it's WAY more complex and, as I say much more like a poorly run summer camp than a quasi-military or even corporate entity.

As a consideration: In the sheriff's office the sheriff can hire and fire at will. There is no grievance right. That's true in most "Commonwealth" type states where "Sheriff" is a constitutional office. But the sheriff does not have all that much power, and such as he has must be exercised more by threat than by action. And since the Sheriff is elected every four years, while chief deputies, who really know the office and the men, can pass from sheriff to sheriff, the wise Sheriff listens to his chief deputy and other deputies of rank and only messes with them in extreme situations. It just has to be that way.

My SIL used to be a bureaucrat in an International Health outfit that contracted with the gummint. Remember when Carter was elected, he was going to clean up the bureaucracy?

Can you say "Passive Aggressive"? I thought you could.

So because of the realities of communication, command & control, and all that, AND because of the conscious effort to push decisions and actions DOWN the polity and OUT from the Vatican, the "Edifice" doesn't really work that well, or isn't that apt.

/EOR (end of rant)

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.