Mary Worship? A Study of Catholic Practice and Doctrine

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

[Christian Engineer Mass]

Jesus said that the truth will set us free. (John 8:32) However, He did not say that the truth would necessarily be easy to accept. It was painful for me to learn the information that I am about to share with you, but it was also liberating and it led to a closer relationship with God.

As a faithful Catholic, and later as a nun, I practiced Mary worship for many years without realizing it. The prayers and practices were so familiar. They were taught to me by good people, sincere people that I trusted. I prayed rosaries and wore a scapular and engaged in other “devotions” which I honestly thought were good and pleasing to God. Because of my lack of knowledge of the Bible and of Church history, I honestly had no idea that I was actually worshipping Mary.

If modern Catholic teachings and doctrines about Mary are true, then they will not be contrary to Scripture, the writings of the Early Fathers, or the decrees of past popes. For a devout Catholic to question these issues and put them to the test can be painful. It certainly was for me. However, it would be far more painful to have God correct us when we face Him on Judgment Day.

LETTING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SPEAK FOR ITSELF

I believe in letting people speak for themselves. Therefore my primary sources about Catholic doctrines and history come from the Catholic Church.

First and foremost is the official Catechism of the Catholic Church which was written for the purpose of summarizing the essential and basic teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. It was approved by Pope John Paul II in 1992 and the English translation was released in 1994.

[RobRoy]

Thank you sir. He said it a lot better than I could.

BTW, I like your sweater.

[A.A. Cunningham]

I haven’t a clue.

Yet, you've argued definitively to the contrary on this thread.

"In which also coming He preached to those spirits that were in prison:" 1 Peter 3:19

[A.A. Cunningham]

All you have is a few brief posts.

What I have is what you have volunteered:

FWIW, my wife was Catholic for a little over 30 years and her whole family is very devout Catholic. This “Mary was ever-virgin” claim was something my wife says she had never heard of before.

If your wife was a practing Catholic she not only heard but publicly proclaimed that the Blessed Mother was a perpetual virgin. Do you want to amend your earlier statement?

[RobRoy]

>>Yet, you’ve argued definitively to the contrary on this thread. <<

All my comments regarding that are speculation on my part. Nothing more.

>>”In which also coming He preached to those spirits that were in prison:” 1 Peter 3:19<<
This answers the question, “What happens to those that died before Christ paid the price?”

Christ’s death and resurrection changed everything. We are literally in a different dispensation now. An example would be the lack of regular animal sacrifices and various feasts (church potlucks notwithstanding).

[wintertime]

then I challenge you to ask God what He thinks about it. If you are sincere in your prayer and open to letting God show you the truth, then He will. ( from the article)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hm?....The author does not state to which denomination she currently belongs, but I have heard Mormons make this challenge to ask God if it is true.

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

**Prior to Jerome, the books were separate from one another, and when placed together, did not have a consistant canon.***

Not so! While various churches obtained copies of the individual gospels and letters, the first to compile them into one form was the heretic MARCION. His modified Luke’s gospel, and Paul’s letters.

This shook up the Chritian believers so much they began to compile their own.

The un-disputed Christian bible at that time was
The four Gospels, Acts, the Letters of Paul (except Hebrews) 1Peter, 1 John and that was it.

Among the disputed books were finally added years later, James, 2nd Peter, 2&3 John, Jude, Revelation and Hebrews.

Interesting thing, the ROMAN church did not want Hebrews in the Bible, the Greek church did not want Revelation.

They compromised and put in both.

[A.A. Cunningham]

Do I? In what way?

By rejecting Scripture.

[A.A. Cunningham]

It’s a very poor analogy.

[RobRoy]

>>What I have is what you have volunteered: <<

Exactly. Like I said, I have more information than you.

>>If your wife was a practing Catholic she not only heard but publicly proclaimed that the Blessed Mother was a perpetual virgin. Do you want to amend your earlier statement?<<

No. Interestingly my wife still has a great fondness for the “rituals” of Catholicism. I’ve been to a Christmas Midnight Mass with her. However, she no longer believes in “the Eucharist” or a lot of other stuff that is unique to Catholicism, though she very much believes and understands, as an adult, the meaning and importance of communion.

Without sidetracking the thread too much, the Eucharist is another example of taking a very simple thing and seriously muddling it up. The purpose of the communion, as described in the bible, is clearly symbolism of the most basic and foundational tenet of Christianity. To suggest that the wine and bread LITERALLY become the body and blood of Christ in your body is ludicrous. Communion is a symbol and reminder of what Christ did for us.

And regardless of one’s interpretation of the “controversial” beliefs in Christianity, this very simple symbolic act has Christianity intact since the Lord gave us the example at the last supper.

And the beauty of it is that Jesus says “as often as you do this”, meaning you can do it with every meal.

[A.A. Cunningham]

All my comments regarding that are speculation on my part. Nothing more.

I suggest you reread all of what you've posted.

Christ’s death and resurrection changed everything. We are literally in a different dispensation now.

So prior to the Resurrection the dead were not dead but after the Resurrection the dead are now dead?

[RobRoy]

>>It’s a very poor analogy.<<

Opinions vary...

(Obscure reference to a comment from the movie "roadhouse".

To be fair, it is not my best analogy, but it makes the point, nonetheless. I much prefer the way it is discussed here though: http://ichthys.com/mail-Mary-full-of-grace.htm

He knows more and spent much more time structuring his response.

[RobRoy]

>>literally in a different dispensation now.

So prior to the Resurrection the dead were not dead but after the Resurrection the dead are now dead?<<

No, prior to the death and resurrection of Christ the rules were different. Since we are discussing something of which the bible gives us very limited understanding, I am reticent to use it to support any doctrine outside the context of the actual scripture that discusses it.

The rules were different before Jesus death and resurrection. And the apostles never discuss what is going on with those who die after that event other than to say they sleep or rest or (insert similar euphemism here). So anything we say about my dead grandma and what is going on with her quality of existence right now is pure speculation. And our whole concept of “now” very likely does not even exist where “she” currently resides.

[RobRoy]

>>literally in a different dispensation now.

So prior to the Resurrection the dead were not dead but after the Resurrection the dead are now dead?<<

Heck, maybe Jesus “woke them up” for a minute to give them a chance to accept Him. and then let them go back to “sleep/rest” until the resurrection. Who knows. What we do know is what it said, and to whom it applied.

[A.A. Cunningham]

Exactly. Like I said, I have more information than you.

You aren't doing a very good job of presenting it. Therefore, are you now stating that in the over 30 years your wife says she was a Catholic that she did indeed hear of and publicly proclaim that the Blessed Virgin Mary was a perpetual virgin but she didn't believe it?

However, she no longer believes in “the Eucharist” or a lot of other stuff that is unique to Catholicism,

The purpose of the communion, as described in the bible, is clearly symbolism of the most basic and foundational tenet of Christianity. To suggest that the wine and bread LITERALLY become the body and blood of Christ in your body is ludicrous. Communion is a symbol and reminder of what Christ did for us.

Then you both reject John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11 based on your own personal interpretation of Scripture.

[Turtlepower]

Yes - I personally agree with that statement. I believe that I have been guided by the Holy Spirit to understand scripture to the best of my ability. But, I will not make any proclomations that my opinions are absolutely infallible. If others choose to agree or disagree with me - it makes no difference.

Catholics have said that the pope has only issued an official, infallible statement on 2 occasions in history. If that is accepted, then Catholics must also believe that all other statements by popes, which statistically is > 99%, could possibly have been in error. Why do you put your trust in popes, when you acknowledge their judgements may have been wrong? If traditions have been passed on by men, and have only been infallible twice, then why do you equate tradition with scripture as being inerrant?

[Rashputin]

I'm chewing on that at the moment but the part about sin being passed down through the male side means there will be sinless folks aplenty as women create children from two female embryos. It also means that combining two female embryos within the mother of Mary to create Mary is now a clear cut task we ourselves are capable of today. Which means, to me, that the sin is not passed along that way but rather by virtue of the fact that we are human. I was surprised to see that argument in that context. If that is the dominate doctrine then how far away is, "have your own sinless children for an amazingly low price!!"?. Besides he contradicts himself later, so ... Munch, munch, ... chewing right along.

At the very least that link (and I thank Mr Rogers very much for it) pretty well proves that unless you're Greek you're not going to be doing much interpretation on your own or without the help of something beside the Scripture (and a lot of that something if you're serious about studying the Word). The meaning of "alone" is supposed to be clear but it obviously just is too much to ask to agree on the meaning of that word first and then discuss "XXXX Scriptura" which is what people are really saying.

[Mr Rogers]

Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean you don’t study scripture. It means you do, and you take the results of your study seriously, rather than relying on a priest to tell you what to believe.

You will be judged for YOUR behavior and belief, not the priest’s, or the Pope’s.

There are many good study aids out there. I recommend:

http://deeperstudy.com/link/commentaries.html

[Kansas58]

Yes, I do.
However, the “permission” is rather easy to obtain.

[A.A. Cunningham]

However, the “permission” is rather easy to obtain.

That too is an opinion.

[BenKenobi]

Plus you have books like the Shepherd and the Didache.