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.

[Hegewisch Dupa]

Ah, it's not really that incredible. The people you speak of are pretty big on un-Christian behavior, so there is little they can do nor depths they can sink to that would be all that surprising. At least this guy is amusing, what for the way he talks to everyone as though he was teaching Grasshopper; to his fear of vowels. For some real fun, ask him what year it is...

[wagglebee]

I think it is a man made tradition to support impugning Holy Scripture.

So, you DENY the existence of the Holy Trinity as commonly believed by Catholics, Orthodox and Trinitarian Protestants, is that correct? A simple yes or no will do.

[Uri’el-2012]

U-2012>I think it is a man made tradition to support impugning Holy Scripture.

So, you DENY the existence of the Holy Trinity as commonly believed by Catholics, Orthodox and Trinitarian Protestants, is that correct? A simple yes or no will do.

Does Yah'shua deny the RCC trinity ?

Trinity ? Does Yah'shua believe in the "trinity"?

Yah'shua said our Elohim is YHvH and He is ONE.

He also said "the father and I are one".

"If you have seen me you have seen the father".

Are the terms Father and Son metaphors ?

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[wagglebee]

It’s amazing the lengths people will go to in order to avoid answering a simple yes or no question.

Anyhow, it doesnt’ matter. I asked you earlier on this thread if you subscribed to Christian Trinitarian beliefs and you responded that you don’t subscribe to “to Pagan babblings of the Roman church.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2023605/posts?page=1835#1835

Perhaps you weren’t aware that mainline Protestants didn’t reject Trinitarian dogma.

[Quix]

All;

I’m much more comfortable with the traditional Trinitarian constructions on spiritual realities . . . the terms, metaphors etc.

because I believe the Father, The Son and Holy Spirit are evident throughout the Old Testament and the New Testament.

HOWEVER,

WHO can claim precise, exhaustive, comprehensive, full fledged knowledge and understanding of GOD in such matters and terms?

Some visitations to Heaven report ‘viewing’

The Son merging with and flowing out of—as a light flowing out of light—The Son from The Father.

Certainly Christ DID SAY that in seeing Him we saw The Father.

HOW can we comprehensively know, in this realm, what He meant by that?

And HOLY SPIRIT IS CERTAINLY EVERYWHERE.

And God’s Word, Living Word holds the fabric of reality together.

What do we finite ones know about such things?

Where is the need to tear one another’s hearts out over such issues?

I am more than a little curious,

Uri’el-2012; & Roamer_1;

What do you do with the huge issue of whether

JESUS THE CHRIST CAME IN THE FLESH?

[Uri’el-2012]

It’s amazing the lengths people will go to in order to avoid answering a simple yes or no question.

Perhaps you weren’t aware that mainline Protestants didn’t reject Trinitarian dogma.

Who are we, created beings, to DEFINE the creator of the universe, creator of all time and all space.

The hubris, the imperiousness of the ROMAN "church" is breathtaking.

More Dogma unfounded in Holy Scripture.

I trust in the words of Yah'shua.
I reject man-made DOGMA.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[wagglebee]

More Dogma unfounded in Holy Scripture.

The fact that a heretical sect rejects the Holy Trinity DOES NOT mean that it's not in the Bible.

Some seem to have adopted some form of "hyper sola scriptura" in which they reject as false everything which is not explicitely stated in the Bible in terms that they happen to understand.

I trust in the words of Yah'shua.

Really?

Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. (Matthew 28:19)

The word NAME is SINGULAR that indicates oneness, hence the Trinity.

[7] And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. [8] And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7-8)

I am FULLY AWARE that the Comma Johanneum has long been in dispute and I am fully prepared to acknowledge that it is very probably not the writing of Saint John. Nevertheless, those verses even without the Comma have always been understood by Christians to indicate the Trinity.

[Uri’el-2012]

You must have the RCC bible, I don't it.

1Jo 5:7 For there are three that testify:

1Jo 5:8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

You are aware that Matthew 28:19 was modified
The earlist version do not have

baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[Uri’el-2012]

I don’t it ==>I don’t use it.

[wagglebee]

You must have the RCC bible, I don't it.

Fine, let's look at it from the KJV:

7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
-- 1 John 7-8

Nevertheless, I already acknowledged that the Comma Johanneum was likely added later; however, I also pointed out that Christians have always believed that this passages speaks of the Holy Trinity.

You are aware that Matthew 28:19 was modified The earlist version do not have

Again, let's look at the KJV:

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (Matthew 28:19)

Now, if you want to talk about the Shem Tov Matthew, that's fine, but it's a fairly recent translation that was written from a Jewish perspective and has never been accepted by Christians as valid. ALL Christian Bibles translate Matthew 28:19 in a way that is fully consistent with the Vulgate, Textus Receptus, Douay-Rheims or King James Version.

[Hegewisch Dupa]

ALL Christian Bibles? Gee, I am so surprised that the poster solely targeted the “RCC bible” with his comment full-o-snark....

[Uri’el-2012]

Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. (Matthew 28:19)

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Matthew 28:19 KJV

Go, and make disciples of all the nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you,” [[Matt. xxviii. 19.]]

From Proof of the Gospel (the Demonstratio) by Eusebius.

Eusebius (265-339 CE) Bishop of Caesarea around 314 CE

Book III, Chapter 7, 136 (a-d), p. 157

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/eusebius_de_05_book3.htm

also
(2) Book III, Chapter 6, 132 (a), p. 152
(3) Book III, Chapter 7, 138 (c), p. 159
(4) Book IX, Chapter 11, 445 (c), p. 175
(5) Book I, Chapter 3, 6 (a), p. 20
(6) Book I, Chapter 5, 9 (a), p. 24

In ~311 CE Eusebius (265-339) Bishop of Caesarea
In his _Proof of the Gospels_
in Book three chapter seven states

Go, and make disciples of all the nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you,” [[Matt. xxviii. 19.]]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/eusebius_de_05_book3.htm

Apparently Matthew 28:19 was changed
after Eusebius wrote his Proof of the Gospel.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[wagglebee]

Yes, I am aware that Eusebius quoted a manuscript that did not have the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19 and I am aware that non-Trinitarians have ALWAYS used this fact as proof that the verse was changed. However, I am also aware that Jerome was translating a manuscript that DID have the formula just a few decades later and this is what Christians have always accepted. Different manuscripts that say different things DOES NOT mean that Christianity is wrong, the fact of the matter is we don't even know if the manuscript by Eusebius that this is taken from is right. Saint Jerome spoke very highly of Eusebius, yet there has never been any indication that Jerome contemplated changing this verse, a fact which is made all the more critical since we know that there WERE changes that Jerome wanted to make.

Frankly, I don't much care what Messianic Jews and other fringe sects believe. My intent was to demonstrate the heresies that Trinitarian Christians seem willing to overlook (and the FACT is that rejection of the Holy Trinity IS heresy to a Trinitarian Christian) on here just because the non-Trinitarian happens to dislike the Catholic Church.

[Hegewisch Dupa]

Thanks for the ping, and bless you for the informative, comprehensible and accurate post. I love the days on FR when I walk away from the ‘puter more knowledgeable then when I logged on

[Gamecock]

hehehe

[Uri’el-2012]

Yes, I am aware that Eusebius quoted a manuscript that did not have the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19 and I am aware that non-Trinitarians have ALWAYS used this fact as proof that the verse was changed. However, I am also aware that Jerome was translating a manuscript that DID have the formula just a few decades later and this is what Christians have always accepted. Different manuscripts that say different things DOES NOT mean that Christianity is wrong, the fact of the matter is we don't even know if the manuscript by Eusebius that this is taken from is right. Saint Jerome spoke very highly of Eusebius, yet there has never been any indication that Jerome contemplated changing this verse, a fact which is made all the more critical since we know that there WERE changes that Jerome wanted to make. Frankly, I don't much care what Messianic Jews and other fringe sects believe. My intent was to demonstrate the heresies that Trinitarian Christians seem willing to overlook (and the FACT is that rejection of the Holy Trinity IS heresy to a Trinitarian Christian) on here just because the non-Trinitarian happens to dislike the Catholic Church.

YHvH has preserved His remnant of First Century
believers to share His Good News.

I'm not sure what will happen to the believers
of the fourth century Nicea chaired by the
Pagan Pontiff Constantine.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[Hegewisch Dupa]

I for one denounce the declaring of our Protestant Brothers & Sisters in Christ as pagans

[Mad Dawg]

Are the terms Father and Son metaphors ?

I think not exactly metaphors. I think analogies.

All our language is informed by created things processed through created organs of sense and mulled over by created minds. There can be no language or "concept" adequate to uncreated Reality.

It does NOT follow though that no analogy is better or worse than any other.

Look, what do we say when talking about operations of the mind? "I get it." "I see" "I hear you." "I have a good grasp of this." Even "I understand." All these are concrete images, though 'understand' is now limited in use to intellectual operations.

But, in my experience FWIW, there's a wonderful thing that happens. I start by saying something like, "God is kind of like a father," but after a while I realize that I am the analogy, the construct, the "figure". God is what a human father only seems to be. I end with, "in my carnal fatherhood, I am kind of, a little, like God."

However, there are meaningful parts of the Trinitarian language. I know that you all think we're head-tripping pagans and all, but we Scholastics (or, in my case, would-be Scholastics)think any position other than monotheism is incoherent, in the strict sense. So we think there is one God -- "has to be."

Now when we say that the Son is the "only begotten of the Father" and "eternally begotten of the Father before all worlds," we are saying, first, that the Son is the same kind of thing that the Father is. Like begets like, and creates unlike.

What makes the mystery is that "the kind of thing that the Father is," is the kind where there can only be one of them.

So while I am the same kind of thing that you two are (only WAY better looking), I am a separate "instantiation" of the "humanity." But that's okay because there's no essential problem with there being more than one human. But if the Son and the Holy Spirit are the same kind of thing that the Father is, then, urp, well, in some sense they must be "one with" or identical to the Father. But in another sense, there must be SOME kind of difference, because the Son obeys the Father, and when the Son leaves the Spirit is sent (and for other and better reasons -- most of which are over my head.)

So all the language about one "substance" but three "persons" (or one "ousia" and three "hypostases" is to provide a vocabulary which allows us to say, "In the most fundamental sense 'they' are one, but in a subordinate but nonetheless real sense 'that one' is truly three."

[wagglebee]

YHvH has preserved His remnant of First Century believers to share His Good News.

An interesting fantasy for which there is no proof whatsoever.

What EXACTLY is this group of non-Trinitarians that you claim has existed since the first century? Give us a name.

I'm not sure what will happen to the believers of the fourth century Nicea chaired by the Pagan Pontiff Constantine.

I don't know who told you this nonsense, but they were wrong.

For starters, there is NO LIST of Popes that suggests that the Church has ever considered Constantine the Great a pope.

Secondly, there has NEVER been any evidence that he was anywhere near Nicea at the time of the Council.

Thirdly, the First Council of Nicaea didn't really even address the Holy Trinity. The Holy Trinity had been written about by Origen, Tertullian, Polycarp, Justin Martyr and Ignatius centuries earlier.

Finally, the First Council of Nicaea is accepted as valid by nearly ALL Protestants as is the Holy Trinity.

What I would love to know is why you never go on Protestant threads and berate them for saying the Nicene Creed and believing in the Holy Trinity. Although that is not nearly as telling as the fact that they will ignore your rejection of the Trinity in exchange for your opposition to the Catholic Church.

[wagglebee]

I for one denounce the declaring of our Protestant Brothers & Sisters in Christ as pagans

Oddly enough, it doesn't seem to bother them, which is quite odd when you consider how nearly universal the Nicene Creed is.