Mary Worship? A Study of Catholic Practice and Doctrine

Park View ^ | July 2001 | Mary Ann Collins (A Former Catholic Nun)

[BenKenobi]

I am not saying that it’s unimportant or that my feelings were hurt. Simply that it’s a serious allegation that has to be dealt with.

I know from what you say here that you have longstanding and serious issues with the Church beyond what we’ve discussed.

I was on the other side. There is nothing you’ve said here which I haven’t already said myself enough times. Yes, it is a difficult topic.

But I’m going to say again, we do not worship her. You’ll willingly accord her honour and that is all. Some of us do pray and ask her to pray for us. We all have our own patrons and we have Christ as well.

It’s like having a friend up there who will help us out. Love isn’t less because we love God and love people, Christ isn’t less because we honour his mother, and honour the Saints. Love isn’t a zero sum game.

[Claud]

I believe you are talking about justification. However, I am talking about sanctification.

Grace does not just cover over sins—its ultimate end game is to make us perfect and sinless in heaven. Which is why it is remarkable for Scripture to imply that a woman has already received her due measure of grace.

[Siena Dreaming]

Sadly, not the same word in the Greek.

Not so sad, Kenobi.

You will find if you read more of that book JEROME WROTE (LOL) that those who stand before God in a blameless fashion in His fulness are also experiencing full grace.

Those who parse might have issues with these truths...but this is exactly what Christ has done for us.

Ah, well...I see you are not a serious debator on some things or perhaps it is late for you and you are not operating on full steam, but I'm done here. Go in God's fullness...whether you believe that means forgiveness, blamelessness, or grace!

[BenKenobi]

XAIPE is Caire/Chaire and it means hail.

XAIPE KEXAPITWMENH

Caire Kecharitomene

Hail most highly favoured one/one who is full of Grace

[RobRoy]

>>I have been put under, and I don’t think that’s what it’s like at all. I think we are well aware, more aware than we’ve ever been of what is happening and what is going to happen. It’s like the falling away of our binds etc.<<

So, we differ on what it will be like. If the Lord waits until after both of us have died, then we will find out for sure. ;)

>>There have been people who have experienced near death, and their reports have quite a few similarities.<<

But none of them died. Sure, they were “clinically dead” but they didn’t die. They were “near death” and their brains were all going through the process that precedes REAL death, but they did not die. Near death and death are two utterly different things. And sure they all had similar experiences - They all had human physiology.

I think crop circles are more interesting.

[RobRoy]

>>Christ says, that we will neither give or be given in marriage in heaven.

He does not say that we will cease to become men and women. For some of us it means leaving these decrepit bodies behind and getting a new one that works right.<<

True. So it means that we don’t really know, other than people won’t get married. I’m sure Hugh Hefner will be happy to hear that. And some would think that 72 virgin thing suddenly sounds appealing again.

In all seriousness, although you may not label it that way, I am seeing more and more in common with what you say and what Mormonism teaches.

[BenKenobi]

Aware of that passage, which is why I’m trying to explain to you that the word which gets parsed out as ‘full of grace’ is not the same word as that which you are referring to here.

But carry on. Words that are different all mean the same thing... Some of us are concerned that different Greek words are conflated together in English, when there is a concrete difference between them. Sometimes it’s because English lacks the distinction.

I can love you and love books, but I don’t mean to have sex with the binding.

[BenKenobi]

Can’t see how as Mormonism teaches that we marry for eternity.

[RobRoy]

>>I know from what you say here that you have longstanding and serious issues with the Church beyond what we’ve discussed.<<

I used to consider Catholicism a non-Christian cult. I then saw Catholicism as seriously flawed. With this “ever-virgin Mary” thing, I AM fighting going back to my original belief, however. And I admit that.

And this is why: “We all have our own patrons and we have Christ as well.”

Tnat statement is wrong on so many levels that I have a hard time knowing even where to begin. It is like arguing with liberals and accusing them of being communists and they say “YOU BET WE ARE COMMUNISTS!”. So, where do you go from there?

Read your statement. How would a person who had never been exposed to Christianity interpret that? What does it say about the deity and uniqueness of Christ?

There is no “Patrons AND Jesus too”. There is only Jesus. Within Christianity there are literally two human groups:
1. Jesus
2. Everybody else

And if you are not Jesus you are in group 2.

[RobRoy]

>>It’s like having a friend up there who will help us out. <<

Yes. And His name is Jesus.

[Claud]

So I try to be careful, when identifying my core beliefs, in putting too much emphasis on a single scripture, and one that has a "less than precise" meaning within the context.

And you are absolutely right to do so. I wouldn't presume to hang the entire doctrine on this verse alone. But I hope it at least helps show that the early Church calling Mary the "All-Holy One" had a basis in Scripture.

[RobRoy]

χαίρω (chairō)

1) to rejoice, be glad

2) to rejoice exceedingly

3) to be well, thrive

4) in salutations, hail!

5) at the beginning of letters: to give one greeting, salute

Followed by χαριτόω (charitoō)

1) to make graceful - charming, lovely, agreeable

2) to peruse with grace, compass with favour

3) to honour with blessings

What I am seeing above is not something that would cause me to seriously use this scripture to make the argument you are attempting to make.

[RobRoy]

I have a friend who is a VERY sharp Greek/Hebrew scholar. She said that the only people who really KNOW what the bible says are the ones who have a strong understanding of the language of the original texts.

For the rest of us, we must depend on the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

[BenKenobi]

“We all have our own patrons and we have Christ as well.”

Yes, and?

The love we have for Christ doesn’t limit the love that we have for our brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers and sons and daughters. As I said, we are all family to one another, and that includes the Saints in heaven.

Or for our neighbours. Or for the man down on the street that everybody passes down on the other side.

You think there’s a reason why Christianity is the religion of the worthless, of the despised, of the scum of the earth. It’s because these people know and understand what it’s like, and how cruel that people can be on this earth.

In Christ they find the love that others have denied them.

So yeah, I’ll keep preaching that. Recoil at love? You might as well stop believing in fairies.

The most real things are the things that Children and men cannot see.

[RobRoy]

>>Can’t see how as Mormonism teaches that we marry for eternity.<<

I am not saying you agree with everything they teach. What I am saying is you differ from “my” understanding of Christianity in some ways that the Mormons do. No, I am not implying that you are mormon.

[BenKenobi]

Agreed. I’m not a scholar, but I rely on those who are, and those for whom it was their native language.

This is why tradition is so important, and everyone relies on tradition for interpretation in one way or another. The argument isn’t so much between scripture and tradition, but between tradition and tradition.

[BenKenobi]

If Marx is on your right shoulder, you’ve got issues.

[RobRoy]

>>But I hope it at least helps show that the early Church calling Mary the “All-Holy One” had a basis in Scripture.<<

Not really. I consider it serious warpage of the meaning much as the homosexuals warp the scripture to support their lifestyle. From saying that Soddom’s sin was lack of hopitality to saying that the bible teaches that it is a sin for a man to lie with another man only if he is heterosexual. And yeah, their arguments have a basis in scripture, depending on which interpretation of the original text one uses.

[RobRoy]

>>If Marx is on your right shoulder, you’ve got issues.<<

I’ll say!

[Claud]

I have a friend who is a VERY sharp Greek/Hebrew scholar. She said that the only people who really KNOW what the bible says are the ones who have a strong understanding of the language of the original texts.

She is absolutely right, and that is an excellent point.

On that basis, then, who would know this verse better...people who speak Greek or people who don't? People like your friend who study NT Greek as an academic subject in the 20th century, or the people who spoke it natively in the 1st and 2nd centuries?

I submit if we want to understand this verse, we need to go back and find out how the people it was addressed to understood it.