If you, however, were alive in the time of Jesus you would stand apart with the pharisees and ridicule the woman who “worshipped the hem of Jesus’ garment instead of going to Jesus directly”, I am certain.
An insanity plea is rejected for your string of logical fallacies, this one here being a false analogy. For here there is no prostration before the garment as a separate exalted invisible personality possessing personal prerogatives and powers and who may be contacted mentally, nor that the garment itself possessed healing power given by God, but the garment the Lord was clothed in is as the skin of Christ insofar as direct physically touching Him is concerned, which contact she needed to believe this direct contact would heal her, though actually greater faith did not even need contact.
And what is taught here is that this means of direct contact to Christ could heal by faith, while the possibility of conveying grace thru personal physical contact in this earthly realm is also taught elsewhere, but a division btwn the earthly and heavenly realms is manifest, in which two-way communication in Scripture btwn created beings from their respective realms required both to somehow be visibly present in the same realm, versus being able to hear all earthly prayer from Heaven and communicate from there.
At best the story in Mt. 9 can be used to support relics, in which such inanimate things as clothes that belonged to a holy person were sometimes used as instruments of healing in Scripture (Acts 19:12; 2Ki 4:29-31; 13:20,21), but which simply does not support kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, even with adulation, attributes, glory and titles never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers addressed to them, and beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them.
Which would constitute worship in Scripture , yet Catholics imagine by playing word games they avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.
Instead the only thing this is close to is pagan devotion: /p>
As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes... (Jeremiah 44:16-17)
Oh, and by the way, if the Catholic priest is not to be found in Sacred Scriptures, using the same logic, where in the Sacred Scripture are Catholics ridiculed for worshipping Mary? If you cannot find it in Sacred Scripture than one is to be ridiculed for imagining it to be possible by your logic
Which is simply another desperate logical fallacy, for one, the conspicuous absence of priests alone is not the argument, but that of their unique sacerdotal function and a distinction being made in providing an alternative title. A distinct class of men distinctively titled sacerdotal "priests" ("hiereus") are in fact abundantly found in Scripture, as are NT ministers but who are called presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) - both denoting the same office - and who are never called priests, nor shown to have any exclusive sacerdotal function. Which thus manifest a a distinction with a unique class of men titled distinctively titled "priests," with the only NT priesthood being that of all believers, since they are all called to sacrifice and intercede.
And 2, the absence of a specific example of something that is condemned Scripture (engaging in worship - as described in Scripture - of created beings) does not mean that the specific example is not condemned.
Catholics can thus be condemned for worshiping Mary because it is condemned in principle. To argue otherwise would be argue that since "loving monogamous homosexual relationships btwn believers "are not specifically seen condemned in Scripture means that they cannot be condemned.
Of course, your additional and fundamental fallacy is that SS, as hitherto described, means nothing specific can be condemned in principle based upon what is written on the subject unless that specific example is mentioned as forbidden.
All of which means that not only is your invisible and contraScriptural church condemned, but so are your desperate vain arguments, which are actually an argument against being a RC. . You should have quit before you fell even further behind.
Regarding your assumptions:
Catholics give adulation that is due to Mary, much as her cousin Elisabeth did. We also trust that God is able to hear our pleas to her and ensures that she then is able to plea as our own natural mother would for us, for we know her to be in heaven and that unlike the pagan “queen of heaven” that she was crowned as queen of heaven and earth (partly as a test of the protestant (or ridiculant see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3509997/posts?page=1158#1158) mind to see if they have appropriate faith to trust in the Church that Christ founded, I suppose! God has such a sense of humor when it comes to His son’s mother.) It’s rather comical to watch the ridiculants contort and accuse and complain of the Catholic devotion to Mary His blessed mother.
From THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS THE ANSWER
by Paul Whitcomb consider:
Why do Catholics worship Mary as though she were a goddess, when it is clear in Scripture that she was not a supernatural being?
Catholics DO NOT worship Mary, the Mother of Christ – as though she were a deity. Of all the misconceptions about Catholic belief and practice, this one is the most absurd. Catholics are just as aware as Protestants that Mary was a human creature, and therefore not entitled to the honors which are reserved to God alone. What many non-Catholics mistake for adoration is a very profound love and veneration, nothing more. Mary is not adored, first because God forbids it, and secondly because the Canon Law of the Catholic Church, which is based on Divine Law, forbids it. Canon Law 1255 of the 1918 Codex strictly forbids adoration of anyone other than the Holy Trinity. However, Catholics do feel that Mary is entitled to a great measure of exaltation because, in choosing her as the Mother of Redemption, God Himself exalted her – exalted her more than any other human person before or since. Catholics heap tribute and honor on Mary because they earnestly desire to be “followers of God, as most dear children.” (Eph. 5:1). Mary herself prophesied: “For behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name.” (Luke 1:48-49). Catholics know that every bit of the glory they give to Mary redounds to the glory of her divine Son, just as Mary magnified God, not herself, when Elizabeth blessed her. (Luke 1:41-55). They know that the closer they draw to her, the closer they draw to Him who was born of her. In the year 434 St. Vincent of Lerins defended Christian devotion to Mary this way: “Therefore, may God forbid that anyone should attempt to defraud Holy Mary of her privilege of divine grace and her special glory. For by a unique favor of our Lord and God she is confessed to be the most true and most blessed Mother of God.” Today 75% of all Christians still hold to this same view.