This is a misrepresentation of the Catholic position. Who ever stated that the saint “requested” personal devotion?
Thank you for your response.
Unfortunately, so far as I can tell, my understanding is only a misrepresentation of the Catholic position insofar as what is supposed to be the Catholic position (a point I intend to investigate further) seems to want to eat its cake and have it too.
As a matter of practice, there seems to be effectively no extravagance that can be heaped upon the Blessed Virgin Mary that can not be excused by some Catholics. This despite numerous old testament passages where Angels refuse to allow themselve to be worshipped (and to insist the offering of the Mass is the only form of worship is intellectually dishonest unless one can show those same saints were falling on their knees to offer a Mass to the visiting Angels).
It looks to me like many Catholics will accept any explaination so long as it sanctions what they desire to believe.
I am reminded of how one apologist who regularly guests on Catholic answers (I believe Martingioni) uses jewish cultural norms to insist Jesus would not have entrusted the care of the BVM to St. John if she had had other children because it would have been such a grave cultural insult, yet Karl Keating rightly points out claiming to be God was a grave offense to jewish culture of the time, but that didn’t stop Jesus. Therefore, any rational based on Jesus’ regard for contemporary sensibilities is empty.
Am I saying Mary had other children? No, I’m saying Martingoni’s argument against the proposition is utterly worthless.
Likewise, I am saying many of the arguments used to justify practices associated with the Blessed Virgin Mary are worthless, not that Mary isn’t deserving of honor, nor that she holds a unique position in all of creation.
You honor people who have done wonderful things. You honor Michael Jordan for being a great basketball player. In honoring Michael Jordan, you are also honoring God, who blessed him with this talent. In the same way, we honor saints who have lived a sanctified life. Through honoring them, we also honor God who sanctified them. It really is a false dichotomy to say it has to be either/or.
I am reminded of a person who once came to me saddened about their work situation.
Supervision came to her and announced she would have to take a mandatory, unpaid, vacation she did not want.
I told her to apply for unemployment.
She said she thought about that, but couldn’t because it was a vacation.
Of course, I told her what her company was refering to as a mandatory, unpaid, vacation is known as a “layoff” anywhere else.
My point is you can call something whatever you like, but if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and swims like a duck, you better have a superb reason to call it something other than a duck.
You have not even attempted to give that reason. All you have done is put forth various statements telling me I’m wrong, and some of those statements defy credulity. (honoring Michael Jordan is honoring God?)
And again, nobody is “requesting” anything.
Again, finding the rosary promises on the internet is fairly effortless.
The fifteen rosary promises are easily found on the internet. The above statement is simply wrong.
It would seem to me a more fruitful argument would be to deny the source and validity of the promises than deny what they say.
It is natural for us to honor “greatness.” Nor is this reverence anything next to the adoration we pay to God. When we respect and honor God’s creation, we ultimately honor the creator. St. John of Damascus stated, “I do not worship matter. I worship the God of matter, who became matter for my sake, and deigned to inhabit matter, who worked out my salvation through matter. I will not cease from honouring that matter which works my salvation” (De imaginibus 1:16). In other words, honoring the saints and paying reverence to them only honors God all the more.
I see no reason to believe your statement is the same as St. John of Damascus in “other words.”
