Are Catholic worshiping Mary? and the statues?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheBreak
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m not equating veneration and worship, I’m distinguishing between them.
The Church distinguishes between worship as veneration and worship as adoration. You seem to be saying that veneration is not worship and this is not what the Church teaches and, in fact, is in opposition to Church teaching, as I have shown.
 
What God has done for the Blessed Virgin cannot be comprehended by anyone but God.
I am not saying God didn’t do it because I can’t comprehend it. I am saying I don’t see any reason whatsoever to believe that God did in fact do it.

And another thing I didn’t mention, I believe that no amount of grace can turn a finite individual into a God, and I think omniscience is a divine characteristic that is exclusive to the creator, and cannot be conferred on a creature.
Are you saying that Jesus teaches hate?

What about this,

Matthew 15:4 - For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.’
Nup. Saying that we Jesus teaches we must not devote every fibre of our being to loving and honoring anyone but God.

(If the use of the word “hate” troubles you, look up the parallel passage. This verse has been a bit distorted in the translation to English.)
 
I agree that the underlined sentences can be troubling…IF taken out of context.
However - if looked at within the context of how this person understands Mary - the problems diminish.
Let’s look at what is said before he gets to his dedication.
Originally Posted by St. Ligouri
O, Mother of my God, and my Lady Mary: as a beggar, all wounded and sore, presents himself before a great queen, so do I present myself before you, who are the Queen of heaven and earth. From the lofty throne on which you sit, disdain not, I implore you, to cast your eyes on me, a poor sinner. God has made you so rich that you might assist the poor, and (God) has constituted you Queen of Mercy in order that you might relieve the miserable. Behold me then, and pity me: behold me and abandon me not, until you see me changed from a sinner into a saint. I know well that I merit nothing; that I deserve, on account of my ingratitude, to be deprived of the graces that, through your means, I have already received from God. But you, who are the Queen of Mercy, seek not merits, but miseries, in order to help the needy. But who is more needy than I? O, exalted Virgin, well do I know that you, who are Queen of the universe, are already my queen; yet am I determined to dedicate myself more especially to your service, in order that you may dispose of me as you please.
So - first we see him distinguish her from God. She is “Mother of God” Theotokos…the God bearer.
I don’t really see that as a huge distinction from God. We also call Christ the “Son of God”.
And strictly speaking, Mary was never the mother of God (God = trinity), but of Christ only. Furthermore, since there is supposed to be a divine and human nature to Christ, that only means Mary furnished the human nature, the divine nature being eternal. I think “Mother of God” is an overstatement.
Then he describes her in terms of what “God has made her” and what God has given to her and “constituted” her to be and do…This is God’s work in the view of the writer…Not Mary’s.
“Until you see me changed”…Mary does not change him…God does…
"Graces…received from God. the writer sees Mary not as the source but as a channel.
True. I see your point.

But still, doesn’t the RCC teach that Mary supposed to be a coredemptrix, in the sense that her sufferings saved us in the same way Christ did?

And there are other RC sources that show Mary to be the source of all sorts of things:
ourladyswarriors.org/prayer/15promise.htm
40.png
Mary:
I promise my special protection and the greatest graces to all those who shall recite the Rosary. . . . . . . . . 9. I shall deliver from purgatory those who have been devoted to the Rosary. . . . . .11. You shall obtain all you ask of me by recitation of the Rosary.
I have run into a word limit - to be continued. . . . . . .
 
So - it is from a knowledge and acknowledgement of Mary’s proper place in the order of grace that the writer makes his dedication. This understanding throws an entirely new light on what the writer then promises.
Let’s look…
“I am yours; save me. Accept me, O Mary, for your own, and as yours, take charge of my salvation. I will no longer be mine; to you do I give myself.”
So - is he offering himself to a god? No He is offering himself to be a servant of the servant of God - and queen of heaven who, he has already acknowledged, is only what God has made her.
Rather - in this he is imploring Mary to come to his aide for he is, by his own reckoning a poor and miserable sinner.
Regardless of how much God has alledgedly blessed her, regardless of whether she is a servent of God or not, isn’t it idolatory for you to give yourself to anything other than God?

In Revalation, John gets told off for venerating an angel, who is Gods servent.
Then we have the final comment that troubles you.

“no one will surpass me in honoring and loving you”
You have expressed the concern that…

But is it a breach of the commandment?
Jesus tells us that we are to Love our neighbor as ourselves and that this is the second great commandment. So - How well do we love ourselves? And how would loving Mary in this way be in conflict with this great commandment?
Yes - we are to Love God First and Foremost…We are to Love what God loves and Hate what God hates.
Do you think that God, in each of the three persons of the Trinity, Loves Mary?
How much do you think that God Loves Mary?
Would we please God if we Love Mary as He does?
Would we please God if we fail to love Mary as He does?
Just some thoughts to ponder.

Now - that said - The kind of language that is used in the quoted prayer and dedication is not something that I am personally comfortable with. So I can see how others would find it uncomfortable too. And for such people…don’t pray it. We each embrace our Heavenly Mother in our own ways.

But in regards to that which you posted…one needs to try to understand the heart that wrote it and to see exactly what is believed and is being conveyed. Pointing to the last couple of lines without first digesting the principles on which it is based does an injustice to the writer.

I hope this is helpful to your understanding these matters.

Peace
James
My primary problem with the last sentence is that it is doing more than just loving Mary, it is loving and honoring Mary with all of your heart and soul and strength and mind. I don’t have a problem with loving Mary, but not like that.

Yes, we must love our neighbor as ourselves. Do you remember the parable of the good Samaritin? He did something practical to help his neighbor, he didn’t stick his neighbor on a pedestal for veneration. He didn’t devote every fibre of his being to loving this one, particular neighbor.

If I devote 101% of my energy to loving myself, that is sin, so likewise, “love your neighbor as yourself” does not order the kind of devotion prescribed here.

Sure God loves Mary, but do you really think God venerates Mary? God, the thrice Holy, sticks up a statue of Mary in his living room and can be found at times kneeling before it? Therefore, I think that by venerating Mary in this way, we are failing to love her as God does.

Finally, you say that if we don’t like it, don’t pray it, and that we approach our heavenly mother in our own ways.

I would agree with you if I believed this prayer was not idolatory. The problem is not that I don’t feel comfortable about praying this prayer, the problem is that I believe this prayer will send you to hell if you pray it. And it has official vatican saction, so there is no room for saying “some people like it, but you don’t have to if you don’t”, as if it were a dietary choice.

Thankyou for your thoughtful and reasoned reply, it has certainly helped me to better understand the reasons why roman catholics venerate Mary.
 
How do you know what is in God’s mind?

If you wanted to know something about a revealed truth from God…will instantly zap you and in an instant, you would know?

Or would God give you opportunities…you would be led somewhere…to discover what is God’s revealed truth on the matter?
Those questions should really be addressed to you. You claim God did all this stuff, doesn’t that mean you get the onus of proof?
 
Those questions should really be addressed to you. You claim God did all this stuff, doesn’t that mean you get the onus of proof?
You made this statement…I am saying I don’t see any reason whatsoever to believe that God did in fact do it.

You are claiming He did not…that is why I asked how you know God did not?

Did God tell you He did not? Or you just heard this from somewhere, from someone’s claim?

Hmmm…and that is why I also asked…If you wanted to know something about a revealed truth from God…will instantly zap you and in an instant, you would know?

Or would God give you opportunities…you would be led somewhere…to discover what is God’s revealed truth on the matter?
 
You made this statement…I am saying I don’t see any reason whatsoever to believe that God did in fact do it.

You are claiming He did not…that is why I asked how you know God did not?

Did God tell you He did not? Or you just heard this from somewhere, from someone’s claim?

Hmmm…and that is why I also asked…If you wanted to know something about a revealed truth from God…will instantly zap you and in an instant, you would know?

Or would God give you opportunities…you would be led somewhere…to discover what is God’s revealed truth on the matter?
Saying that I don’t see any reason to believe that God did, is not the same thing as saying that God did not.

And then, if there is no evidence to sugges God did not, it is safe to assume that he actually didn’t.

You *cannot *say God has done something because there is a lack of proof of him not having done it.

Give me a reason 🙂
 
Okey then…what are those reasons…why don’t you enumerate them.
The lack of a positive reason is in itself reason enough for me. I do have other reasons, but that is what I want to talk about right now.
Again…there should be a basis for your assumption that God did not…so what are those…the basis for you assumption.
What if there is evidence…and you just do not see it…or the evidence is not what you accept?
Again…what is your basis for saying there is no proof? Did you pick that out of thin air?
My basis for saying there is no proof is that you don’t seem to be able to provide one.
 
I don’t really see that as a huge distinction from God. We also call Christ the “Son of God”.
And strictly speaking, Mary was never the mother of God (God = trinity), but of Christ only. Furthermore, since there is supposed to be a divine and human nature to Christ, that only means Mary furnished the human nature, the divine nature being eternal. I think “Mother of God” is an overstatement.
I am glad that you see a distinction - even if it is not a huge one. 😉
As for Mary’s title “Mother of God”, you would need to take that up with the ancient councils which proclaimed her “Theotokos”, and Mother of God.
But the point here is not what you might think is an overstatement, but rather what the author of the prayer was thinking when he penned it.
True. I see your point.
Excellent. Then you understand that the author of the prayer was not viewing Mary inappropriately…That is great. 👍
But still, doesn’t the RCC teach that Mary supposed to be a coredemptrix, in the sense that her sufferings saved us in the same way Christ did?
No - I do not believe that this is quite correct. The believe that the thrust is more along the lines of that Mary participated in a singular and unique way in the redemption of the world.
To be honest, I am not completely up on the matter. I do know that the title has not been officially declared by the Church. In any event perhaps this article will help you see how these things fit together.
And there are other RC sources that show Mary to be the source of all sorts of things:
ourladyswarriors.org/prayer/15promise.htm
What you are referring to here is a private revelation that Catholics are not required to embrace - even though it is widely promoted.
The official position on the matters is referenced in that article though and I suggest you read the official teachings HERE. You may not agree with them, but at least you will know what is “official” and what is not. Of particular interest might be the fact that the Church is careful to warn against going overboard this is most clearly expressed in para 62 and 67…
Regardless of how much God has alledgedly blessed her, regardless of whether she is a servent of God or not, isn’t it idolatory for you to give yourself to anything other than God?
Well if it is then I have committed idolatry by giving myself to my wife - who is my whole world and through whom I have come back to the Church and who Christ has used to teach me many many lessons of humility and service.

The problem with your position above is that it places a false limit on something that is essentially limitless. Giving myself to my wife, does not detract from my giving myself to God…it enhances it. Likewise, if one is so inclined, giving one’s self to Mary (properly understood) does not detract from God.
In short, it does not equal worship.

(Cont…)
 
(…Cont)
My primary problem with the last sentence is that it is doing more than just loving Mary, it is loving and honoring Mary with all of your heart and soul and strength and mind. I don’t have a problem with loving Mary, but not like that.
You are not alone in this, even among Catholics. But you see…this is the beauty of the Church. None of us is required to go to this length. Personally, I too would feel uncomfortable with such language, but that does not mean I do not love my heavenly mother. I just have a different way of expressing that love.
The bottom line though remains that - in looking at the prayer of Ligouri - one must take it in it’s totality and not just lift a couple of lines from it. Though you and I would not wish to go as far as he did, that does not mean that he went too far.
Yes, we must love our neighbor as ourselves. Do you remember the parable of the good Samaritin? He did something practical to help his neighbor, he didn’t stick his neighbor on a pedestal for veneration. He didn’t devote every fibre of his being to loving this one, particular neighbor.
Actually try looking at it from the other direction. What do you think the victim’s attitude was toward the Samaritan after that? Would he not be forever grateful to the man who saved his life? Would he not be that man’s special friend and even be devoted to that man for the rest of his life? And very possibly that devotion would extend not just to the man himself, but to his family as well. If ever they were in need, this saved man - who owes his very life to the action of the Samaritan - would be there.
Would you say that such devotion - is taking anything away from God?
If I devote 101% of my energy to loving myself, that is sin, so likewise, “love your neighbor as yourself” does not order the kind of devotion prescribed here.
I think that this could be a thread all to itself.
Sure God loves Mary, but do you really think God venerates Mary? God, the thrice Holy, sticks up a statue of Mary in his living room and can be found at times kneeling before it? Therefore, I think that by venerating Mary in this way, we are failing to love her as God does.
Since Mary is right there in God’s Living room with Him he can talk with her face to face…and Since God IS Love, I think we could say that he “venerates” too since veneration stems from Love.
But that probably gets into all sorts of rabbit trails that we would rather not go down.
Finally, you say that if we don’t like it, don’t pray it, and that we approach our heavenly mother in our own ways.
I would agree with you if I believed this prayer was not idolatory. The problem is not that I don’t feel comfortable about praying this prayer, the problem is that I believe this prayer will send you to hell if you pray it. And it has official vatican saction, so there is no room for saying “some people like it, but you don’t have to if you don’t”, as if it were a dietary choice.
Well - I guess then it comes down to either the Vatican, the whole magisterium of the Church - the Church with authority to bind and loose “whatever”, is wrong or you personally are wrong.
So from here the discussion moves to one of authority…which is where all such conversations must, of necessity, end up.
Thankyou for your thoughtful and reasoned reply, it has certainly helped me to better understand the reasons why roman catholics venerate Mary.
Thank you for your kind words. I am glad it has been of help to you.
It has been a joy discussing this with you. Reasoned conversation cannot help but be useful to both sides - as well as any others “listening in”.

Peace
James
 
You can’t ignore the fact that there are people who do not venerate, but worship Mary. The church doesn’t sanction this obviously, but it still exists. TULIP brought me to it
The Church also knows that “The abuse does not negate the use.” We are to help those who do go too far by showing them their error so they may correct it, but to those who demand we give up what is legitimate, we should deny their error too.

That is, those who worship Mary and demand that others do so, we need to correct. Those who say that all honor of Mary or any saint is illegitimate and should be stopped also need correction. If the saints do not help you find God, why do you deny their help to us who do find good in them? Read Hebrews about being surrounded by a cloud of witnesses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top