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.

taught

"And he taught them many things by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine..." -- Mark 4:2

Did all men understand Jesus' parables?

No, only those to whom God first gave eyes to see and ears to hear and a renewed mind to understand...

"Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand." -- John 10:-29

As Christ said, we must be born again, not by the will of men but by the will of God.

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you." -- 1 Peter 1:23-25

"Born again...by the word of God." "Taught" by the Holy Spirit.

Does the Holy Spirit try to teach all men and therefore the Holy Spirit fails because not all men believe?

Or is the Holy Spirit God's free, unmerited gift to His family to whom He will, for His own good pleasure?

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;
Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself" -- Ephesians 1:4-9

We are "made acceptable" in order to "praise the glory of His grace." All and anything good within us is Jesus Christ whom the Father loves and gives to those who are His.

"Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father." -- John 6:65

He referred to himself as Timothy’s father. Peter referred to himself as Mark (the Gospel author’s) father. I understand that you may not know, but when one is writing a letter to someone else, one normally writes from the first person. Usually one does not write about others’ addresses to the author.

Describing as oneself as a spritual father is far different than being called father, which neither of them were ever called as such.

Applause. The admonishment is to those who do not have claim to be spiritual fathers, yet who claim to be. That is why Catholic priests can be called Father in full accord with Scripture.

No, no Roman Catholic is anyone's spiritual 'father', since he never leads anyone to salvation.

Actually, Roman Catholic Priests lead people away from salvation and into hell.

[As for being 'full of grace' only Christ was said to be 'full of grace' (Jn.1:14)...]

Not true. Mary was also said to be 'full of grace.' (Lk.1:28).

Incorrectly.

[ ...Mary was said to 'highly favored'...]

In some translations it is rendered that way.

Correctly.

[ ...so by making Mary 'full of grace' as well, you attempt to make Mary equal with Christ Himself.]

Equal in all respects because Scripture describes them in the same way in one respect? That is some weak logic there....not to mention the rule-violating ascribing of motives.

No, stating that she is 'full of Grace' when only Christ is 'full of Grace' is to give her equality with Christ.

No weak logic, simple statement of the obvious, considering that you also make her born sinless and live sinless like Christ as well.

I think you mean to say that she was fully human, like Christ was fully human.

Maybe I haven't followed your exchange closely enough. However . . .

This is an important issue. THE MARY CARICATURE WAS/IS NOT FULLY HUMAN IN ANY SENSE OF THE WORD.

'She' is a hollow cardboard cartoon caricature designed to trigger inherent (often desperate) MOMMY NEEDS of the faithful and potential faithful in behalf of the RC org.

1. She is NOT the normal human daughter of normal human parents.
2. She is NOT the Biblical normal mother of half-blood siblings of Jesus as the OT and NT declare.
3. She is NOT the normally bodily dying and decaying human Scripture indicates all but Jesus and Enoch were.
4. She is NOT the normal graduated-from-this-life human enjoying their Heavenly rest
5. Without God-like omniscience
6. and without prayer answering powers.

The Mary caricature has been fantasized, trumped up, manufactured, created out of whole cloth more masterfully to great destructiveness to souls than Spielberg and all Hollyweed ever managed to do with ET.

Well, of course, you're wrong and You WILL have to burn. SUCH a pity. Especially during such hot weather. Okay, seriously, well, as seriously as I can muster .... It's the overstatement, which I think is a frequent accompaniment to adversarial conversation about religion, which at least partially accounts for this seeming to want to have it both ways.

(A) “OUR DOGMA IS MONOLITHIC, CONSISTENT, PRISTINE, UNIFIED, HOMOGENEOUS ETC. FROM 400 YEARS [BEFORE THE ORG EXISTED] TO THIS MOMENT

Displaying magnificent restraint in ignoring the 400 years thing (except to wonder what buzzackly happened around 430 AD to earn us this charge?) I think of all those adjectives I might try to defend pristine, unified, and consistent. I will throw overboard in a heartbeat both monolithic and homogenous. AS I've said before, appealing not so much to Cardinal Newman as to what somebody told me he said, we would at once say that we have always believed in Jesus, but what we have said about that has unquestionably developed so that, as I have said before, Peter would read the Chalcedonian Definition and likely say, "Say WHAT? What's a hypostasis?" It was always an oak. Once it was an acorn. Now it's a big spreading tree.

Our diocesan seminarians were all taken on a trip to Rome and one was quoted as being impressed with being where so many "who believed what we believe" have been before. And the nit-picking theologian in me had a vision of a host of clarifying footnotes, and I murmured, "Well, yes and no," under my breath.

Yeah, "club" is more better. Or association of clubs, when you take into consideration the Maronites and Byzantines and so forth. "Unruly mob" might also work.

Another problem with adversarial apologetics is that it gives a false impression of where one's emphasis in daily life is. We argue so much about Mary here. And I guess I have a greater than usual (among papists) devotion to Mary. But I wouldn't think about her half so much if Marian Dogma were not such an area of controversy. Especially, despite the external appearance of the practice of the Rosary, I do not experience it as a Marian devotion. (The word "experience" is important.) If I am meditating on the Presentation, I am as likely to be thinking about the idea that the first-born belongs to the Lord, as about Mary. And again, in that "mystery" I tend to think about Mary AND Joseph's experience in the temple, or even about what it would be like to be Simeon.

As to mangling the serfs: Owing to my former, official, black-shirt wearing ministry, when people in my last parish had a problem with one of the priests inflicted upon us for a while, they would come to me. (Talk about being in an awkward position!) And I would urge them to remember that in the vast scheme of things priests are not that important. This guy preached the Love of God well enough. So that was good. And his being somewhat lacking in the diplomatic department did not interfere with his presiding at Mass. And there's no requirement that anyone interact with him outside of that context. So let him be a jerk. Who cares?

But, yeah, some people get mangled. I remembered when a total south end of northward moving horse came by on a mission from the diocese to talk to us about our future. And it suddenly hit me, HE's "in process" TOO. I need to be as patient with him as I would be with anybody else. There may be plenty of books about sanctity and all, but to the extent that any of us are granted sanctity it is through many repetitions of (a) being horse's patootie; (b)realizing that we are being a horse's patootie; (c) repenting; (d)rinsing; (e) repeating. (At least, that's how I do it, except for the sanctity part that is .....)

I'm thinking that getting mangled is to some extent "the wrath of God" on people who want to do their walk in Christ by proxy. And we must confess that in all lines of work and the ordained ministry is no exception, we find people who eagerly enable dependency and immaturity — and THEY find plenty of "victims" who make a devil's bargain in the hope that they will be allowed to remain asleep, dependent, and immature. In that connection, I am always a little amazed at the number of people at Mass who can't wait to get out of the church as soon as possible. It's like they're saying, "Yeah, I'll venture THIS close to the mountain, but I'm not going to let God touch me."

So maybe they are the people I will pray for this week.

Wow. I talk too much.

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.