Replies

In order to expose the unScriptural nature of certain RC teaching, you do not have to engage in the manner of egregious extrapolation of words that RCs often engage in trying to support traditions of men from Scripture.

The elevation of Mary to a "certain equality with the Godhead" is well evidenced by sanctioned and uncensored Catholic teaching.

That is not too far once you start with a sinless perpetual virgin who is also made into

an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,

whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,

who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"

and "was elevated to a certain equality with the Heavenly Father,"

even so that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"

for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"

and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"

for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"

"surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"

so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."

Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"

and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"

including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"

whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"

and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"

and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation." Sources .

And then you are in the realm of the cults:

Note that many Catholic Marian attributions much parallel even that of Christ:

For in the the Catholic quest to almost deify Mary, it is taught by Catholics*,

as Christ was sinless, so Mary was;
as the Lord remained a virgin, so Mary;
as Christ was called the Son of God, indicating ontological oneness, so Mary is called the Mother of God (which easily infers the same, and is not the language of Scripture);
as the emphasis is upon Christ as the Creator through whom God (the Father) made all things, including Mary, so it is emphasized that uniquely “to her, Jesus owes His Precious Blood,” shed for the salvation of mankind, (the logic behind which can lead back to Eve);
as Catholics (adding error to error) believe Christ gave His actual flesh and blood to be eaten, so it is emphasized that Mary gave Him this, being fashioned out of Mary's pure blood and even being “kneaded with the admixture of her virginal milk,” so that she can say, "Come and eat my bread, drink the wine I have prepared" (Prov. 9:5);
as Scripture declares that Christ suffered for our sins, so Mary is said to have done so also;
as Christ saves us from the condemnation and death resulting from the fault of Adam, so it is taught that man was condemned through the fault of Eve, the root of death, but that we are saved through the merits of Mary; who was the source of life for everyone.
as the Lord was bodily ascended into Heaven, so Mary also was;
as Christ is given all power in heaven and in earth, so Mary is “surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven.”
as Christ is the King of the saints and over all kings, (Rv. 15:3; 17:14; 19:16) so Mary is made Queen of Heaven and the greatest saint, and that “Next to God, she deserves the highest praise;”
as the Father made Christ Lord over all things, so Mary is enthroned (all other believers have to wait for their crowns) and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things;
as Christ is highly exalted above all under the Father, so Mary is declared to be the greatest saint of all, and as having a certain equality with the Heavenly Father;
as Christ ever liveth to make intercession for the saints, so is Mary said to do so;
as all things come from the Father through the Son, so Mary is made to be the dispenser of all grace;
as Christ is given all power on Heaven and on earth, Mary is said to have (showing some restraint) “almost unlimited power;”
as no man comes to the Father but through the Son, so it is taught that no one can come to the Son except through Mary in Heaven;
and as the Lord called souls to come to Him to be given life and salvation, so (in misappropriation of the words of Scripture) it is said of Mary, “He that shall find me shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord;” “that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.”
And as Christ is given many titles of honor, so Mary also is, except that she is honored by Catholics with more titles than they give to the Lord Himself!
It should be kept in mind that my objection is not to Mary being honored as the holy chosen vessel to bring forth Christ, but to the excess ascriptions, appelations, exaltation, and adoration (and the manner of exegesis behind it), ascribed to the Catholic Mary, whether officially or by Catholics (with implicit sanction of authority).
And which presumes that bowing down to a statute and attributing to the person it represent attributes and glory that are uniquely ascribed to God/Christ in Scripture, including the power to hear in Heaven incessant multitudinous mental prayers addressed to them from earth and respond to them, and imploring such for heavenly aid, would be understood and vindicated as merely being "hyperdulia," and not "latria" (which Rome states is the manner of adoration reserved for God).
As i have said before, one would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, and as having Divine powers and glory, and making offerings and beseeching such for Heavenly help, directly accessed by mental prayer.
Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?

Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?

bust out laughing

“As i have said before, one would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, and as having Divine powers and glory, and making offerings and beseeching such for Heavenly help, directly accessed by mental prayer.”

Indeed, many Apostles and saints died before consenting to do just such a thing. Remember, in the pagan world, such as was the case in Rome, or Babylon, no one expected the Jews or Christians to offer the highest worship (latria) to the pagan gods of their conquerors. Pagans themselves worshipped and acknowledged all gods, even if they reserved their primary worship and service to one tribal or national god. So, if veneration, hyperdulia, or what have you, to another besides the true God were acceptable, then the Jews of the captivity, or the Christians of the Roman era could have easily made an offering to the pagan gods to placate their rulers and avoid being martyred.

Yet, they stood firm and refused to even bend a knee to save themselves. That clearly shows that, by their example, we should offer no semblance of worship to any but the Most High.

In order to expose the unScriptural nature of certain RC teaching, you do not have to engage in the manner of egregious extrapolation of words that RCs often engage in trying to support traditions of men from Scripture.

"Unscriptural?" Could you clarify your term? Do you mean "cannot be found in Scripture", or do you mean "contradicts Scripture"? (I've heard it used in both senses, and I want to be sure I understand you correctly.)

The elevation of Mary to a "certain equality with the Godhead" is well evidenced by sanctioned and uncensored Catholic teaching.

I'm rather familiar with Catholic teaching, FRiend... and not only do I not see anything even remotely of the sort, but I see explicit condemnation of it:

The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs. . . . This very special devotion . . . differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 971)

By what "secret, conspiratorial knowledge" do you claim that the Church is lying, here, and that Catholics are secretly adoring the Blessed Virgin as a Goddess? Forgive me, but it seems as if you're conjuring dramatic-sounding accusations (inherited from past anti-Catholics) out of whole cloth.

That is not too far once you start with a sinless perpetual virgin who is also made into an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,

We start with a sinless and perpetual virgin, yes. Your further wording, "an almost almighty demigoddess" is raw (and borderline hysterical) opinion, based on nothing real in Catholic teaching. (Please do cite any official Catholic teaching to which refers to the Blessed Virgin as "almost almighty" or "demigoddess", and I'll readily concede my error.) Re: the idea that Jesus "owes His Precious Blood" to the Blessed Virgin, that's as true as the fact that you owe your DNA to your earthly mother and father; it's a simple fact of biology... and it'd make very little sense to say, "Nonono! You owe everything to God alone!" Of course, we do (in the ultimate sense)... but the two are not mutually exclusive, since God chose to work *through* your parents and their cooperation in your conception. (I.e. the "You owe everything to God" part is completely true; the "Nonono!" part is silly and wrong.)

Re: your (*ahem*) "source" (i.e. "The Mary of Catholicism")... I'm afraid the kindest thing I can say about it is that the author is hopelessly confused. I'm trying very hard not to say that he's a bald-faced liar, or delusional. For example: he claims the book "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma", by Dr. Ludwig Ott, says that, on p.83: "As Mother of the Word Incarnate, Mary was elevated to a certain equality with the Heavenly Father." (You cited this, in your own "laundry list".)

I happen to have a copy of that book (electronic); I looked on p.83... and I looked through the entire chapter on Mary... and I did a text-search of the entire book. Nothing. I did, however, find this:

"The measure of grace of the Mother of God falls as much short of Christ's fullness of grace as the dignity of the Mother of God falls short of the Hypostatic Union." (Ott, p.198, sec. 2b)

I'll leave it to your own intellect to see that this is the flat contrary of what the website actually claimed.

Let me add one more point: your own post was using (no offense intended) what are commonly known as "weasel words"--qualifiers which allow a very dramatic-sounding statement (which could fool less-than-careful and/or ignorant readers), while leaving an escape hatch when the burden of proof becomes too great to bear (e.g. "Hey, hey... I said 'ALMOST a goddess', didn't I? I didn't say 'DEFINITELY a goddess'!"). Could you re-cast your argument so as NOT to use those?

Jeepers ... thank you so much for your insights, dear brother in Christ!

•as Christ was sinless, so Mary was;

•as Christ was blank, so Mary was;

I'm amazed that Mary did not die and resurrect as well!