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.

[Petronski]

If you feel personally assaulted, it is because you identify yourself with these words:

The vast majority of Protestants don't harbor this hatred for Mary, the Saints and Catholics in general.

It's a sociopathic fetish, hopefully to be covered by DSM-V.

They do not name you, they were not posted to you, yet you take offense? How . . . revealing.

[OLD REGGIE]

What does any of that have to do with the word blasphemeo?

I'm afraid I don't have the patience to play silly games. I can't help you.

[Petronski]

In fact, you can write your own history if necessary.

Yes you can. You can even pretend the Catholic Church is only 1600 years old.

[OLD REGGIE]

Yeah, you were just jealous (LOL).

True. I was young and not yet a man of the world who, in my prime, would have swept either of them off their feet. :)

I still can't stand that chain smoking ugly old man.

[wagglebee]

You can even pretend the Catholic Church is only 1600 years old.

You can also pretend that the average person living during the Middle Ages who wouldn't earn enough money in his lifetime to purchase a Bible, and couldn't read it if he could, was a devoted practitioner of "sola scriptura."

I also find it curious why it is that, if the Catholic Church was somehow "created by the Roman emperors" at the First Council of Nicea and the Council of Ephesus these councils have NEVER been rejected by Protestantism (though most would prefer to pretend that the Blessed Mother was declared to be Theotokos at Ephesus).

[OLD REGGIE]

Wow...9,237 posts to this thread. Just shows how much the deceiver hates Mary and how long he can hiss.

Typically profound and factually based. LOL

For future gems of wisdom be certain to change the words slightly using the "key word" generator. "Diss" and "bash" come to mind.

[Petronski]

Curiouser and curiouser.

[OLD REGGIE]

Well, for one thing, you never asked me that question in the first place. For another, I think that question has been adequately answered for you by Petronski. And finally, you haven't demonstrated any comprehention for the answers you've receieved so far, so why confuse the discussion further?

You are partially correct. I asked wagglebee in the first place and never got an answer from anyone.

I received a reply from "papertyger" which had no relationship whatsoever with the subject. Par for the course.

To: OLD REGGIE
What is the difference between "coredemptrix" and "mediatrix"?

There is something fundamentally disordered about one who tries to get another to feel guilt for stealing something that other knows he didn't steal.

8,983 posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:48:55 PM by papertyger (Gun control laws make as much sense as giving condoms to a pregnant teen.)
******************************************************

I will, once again, ask the question which has never been answered. Inane and juvenile insults are not answers.

What is the difference between "coredemptrix" and "mediatrix"?

[enat]

“You can also pretend that the average person living during the Middle Ages who wouldn’t earn enough money in his lifetime to purchase a Bible, and couldn’t read it if he could, was a devoted practitioner of “sola scriptura.”

Could be the reason is that the Catholic Church would not permit the average person to read the scriptures alone in their native language during the Middle Ages. Look for “scripture” at “newadvent.org”.

[DaveMSmith]

It's a sociopathic fetish, hopefully to be covered by DSM-V.

62.89 Religious or Spiritual problem in DSM IV. A "V" code, I believe.

[OLD REGGIE]

A self professed grammar and logic king should be aware that a complete claim must be true for the claim to be true.

To facilitate this they developed the theory of “sola scriptura”

False! A baseless fiction.

[DungeonMaster]

And there you have it! In fact, you can write your own history if necessary.

It's a good thing we have a lot of sand bags here in Iowa, cuz I need to empty one out and barf in it.

[Petronski]

A self professed grammar and logic king . . .

Who is that?

...should be aware that a complete claim must be true for the claim to be true.

That is a separate, second claim.

[wagglebee]

Could be the reason is that the Catholic Church would not permit the average person to read the scriptures alone in their native language during the Middle Ages.

NO!

The average person who could read during the Middle Ages could read Latin. Because ALL books had to be inscribed by hand, the cost was incredibly high with very long waits. The only people who could afford books were the very wealthy and they were generally better-educated. ANYONE with formal education would have been fluent in Latin and Greek (in reality, everyone with a university education was fluent in Latin, Greek and often Hebrew until at least the 19th century).

Literacy changed with the advent of the printing press, at that time the Church responded by properly translating Scripture into other languages.

The Church NEVER prohibited ANYONE from reading the Bible, they only forbade unauthorized translations. The Wycliffe translation was considered so flawed that it wasn't even considered by the committee that did the translation for the King James Version.

[Quix]

[OLD REGGIE]

It is a well-established principle of logic that it is, in nearly all cases, impossible to prove a negative. So, it is up to you to prove that ANYONE prior to Luther used the term "sola scriptura."

I imagine you failed your logic course. Dependent claims a, b, and c must all be true for the entire statement to be true. Your claim: To facilitate this they developed the theory of “sola scriptura”

is false. When the term was first used is irrelevant.

[DungeonMaster]

I think a guy like de Montfort lays himself open to suspicions like those you mention. But, and I guess I can't say this often enough, until I started playing the FR apologetics game I didn't, in my standard day, think about Mary all that much. My reading project, which will soon take me from FR, is going to be the so-called social encyclicals of that past 120 years, some of what Ratzinger wrote on Liturgics, and the collection of stuff which make up J2P2's "Theology of the Body". Then I'm going to re-read Fides et Ratio as dessert. That's going to take me months.

The thing about the Papist religion...it's hugh. It's really really hugh and in a lot of ways. Not only are there a billion people in it, there is a vast network of doctrines and mysticisms and rituals. Why it's like, magic in D&D. So a Papist can be completely imersed in Marianism or in the pro life movement, or in his favorite saint, or in the knights of columbus, or in the general friendship of the people he meets at mass or in the study of any other arcane mystery. It's hugh and complicated and it appeals to people that are fascinated by the hugh and complicated. None of this is good. It's artificial. The gospel is simple and I've heard one papist after another offended by simplicity as if that is intellectually inferior.

This is perfectly described in 1Corinthians 1 as the natural mind seeking wisdom. A discerning bible student is not the least impressed with the mystery or complexity of Rome.

[Petronski]

Co-Redemptrix

Co-Redemptrix in Roman Catholic Mariology refers to the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the redemption process. It is a separate concept from Mediatrix.

The concept of Co-redemptrix refers to an indirect or unequal but important participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption. She gave free consent to give life to the redeemer, to share his life, to suffer with him under the cross and to sacrifice him for the sake of the redemption of humankind.

Mediatrix

Mediatrix in Roman Catholic Mariology refers to the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary as a mediator in the salvation process. It is a separate concept from Co-Redemptrix.

The concept of mediatrix has two meanings: Mary gave birth to the redeemer, who is the fountain of all grace. Therefore she participated in the mediating of grace. A second opinion states that Mary, assumed into heaven, participates in the mediating of divine graces of her son. Popes such as Leo XIII through Pius XII have traditionally supported both interpretations.

Perhaps your local community college or learning annex offers courses on the use of internet resources like wikipedia.

[OLD REGGIE]

Are there any non-Calvinists among the elect (so-called)?

Authoritative links needed.

"It's not a "discussion," it's an interrogation."

"Adequate definitions of those terms have not only been posted before, they're also available from dozens of Catholic resources online."

Sound familiar Mr. Non-answer man?

[Quix]

LOL.

I think there's a difference . . . a significant difference, MD . . .

1. Prayer is specifically commanded in Scripture.

2. The focus of prayer in Scripture is explicitly specified in no uncertain terms.

3. There's clear indications that BIBLICAL PRAYER is NOT a vending machine exercise with a robotic God.

4. We are to pray always. God chooses His own answers in His own time in His own way. It's not a 'Jump through this prayer hoop in this fashion and out comes this machine vended result' regardless of how many Pentecostals may sometimes think and act that way.

5. Prayer is Biblically construed to be a conversation with God vs a vending machine ritual. There's not a 'tit-for-tat' element to it but a coming to Daddy with one's needs and trusting Daddy to do the right loving thing about them.

6. Biblically, there's NO, 'if I do this hoop jumping exercise in this way then God has to answer these specifics through Mary. There's nothing even remotely close to that.

7. There's not a shred of the magic talisman Mary Caricature stuff in ANY Biblical mentions of prayer.