Former Catholics - Mary worship

[SyroMalankara]

Thanks for the response, but that’s not what I meant.

What I’m asking is if I wrongly wanted to worship Mary or my wife, how would I go about doing so? What would be officially considered worship?

If you adored Mary as part of the Godhead, prayed to her as a goddess, equal to the Most Holy Trinity; etc. Look up the heresy of Collyridianism - condemned by the Catholic/Orthodox Church from the beginning.

Another example of heresy springing up from a grain of orthodoxy - We all pray for a Holy Death, in Spanish, Santa Muerte - there is a heresy in some Hispanic regions where this prayer for a Holy Death personifies not Our Lady of Holy Death, but a grotesque grimreaper skeletal figure holding a sickle as “Nuestra Señora de la Santa Muerte”. This figure is prayed to as a diety to gain special powers, dark candles are offered and cakes and magic incantations for blessings or curses. Such activity would be heretical, occultic, and idol worship.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Curious question for the Catholics here:

How does one worship a person, whether living or a saint?

Depends on the times.

The etymology of the word worship (English) is ‘worth-ship’; the quality of worthiness.

This is why a judge in Great Britain to this day is referred to as ‘your worship’.

This is why the marriage ceremony in the Anglican Church had the two parties vow "with my body **I thee worship’ **until the mid 20th century.

Now in the US in AD 2014, in a society which is predominantly Protestant, the general public understanding is a **modern Protestant ‘redefinition’ of the word in which they have changed it to mean, "that subordination, love, and total giving of self which is offered to GOD ALONE.’

This definition is not the original definition of worship.

So you can find older writing where the word worship is used to indicate respect for the ‘worth’ of another PERSON, and not ‘for God alone’. One can acknowledge the ‘worth’ of St Paul. One can acknowledge the ‘worth’ of a good pastor such as Billy Graham. One can acknowledge the ‘worth’ of the Blessed Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ. They all have ‘worth’. . .and all that worth is finite and limited, as they are all human, finite, and limited.

However, while one can acknowledge the (limited but still admirable) worth of any given person, there is only one SOVEREIGN LORD to whom we owe everything, who is our ONE TRUE GOD, and that acknowledgement of His perfection, glory, Kingship, and rule is that of INFINITE worth.

All others have ‘finite’ worth. Only God is infinitely worthy, infinitely perfect, infinitely to be given all the ‘worth ship’ that we can give.

Giving ‘worth’ to others does not detract from giving ‘all worth’ to God. Saints are not in competition with God; they ‘reflect’ or magnify God’s worth in them. They cannot be equal to or greater in worth than God; they can’t come anywhere NEAR God in His infinite worth, but they can still have worth.
**

 

[dronald]

Depends on the times.

The etymology of the word worship (English) is ‘worth-ship’; the quality of worthiness.

This is why a judge in Great Britain to this day is referred to as ‘your worship’.

This is why the marriage ceremony in the Anglican Church had the two parties vow "with my body **I thee worship’ **until the mid 20th century.

Now in the US in AD 2014, in a society which is predominantly Protestant, the general public understanding is a **modern Protestant ‘redefinition’ of the word in which they have changed it to mean, "that subordination, love, and total giving of self which is offered to GOD ALONE.’

This definition is not the original definition of worship.

So you can find older writing where the word worship is used to indicate respect for the ‘worth’ of another PERSON, and not ‘for God alone’. One can acknowledge the ‘worth’ of St Paul. One can acknowledge the ‘worth’ of a good pastor such as Billy Graham. One can acknowledge the ‘worth’ of the Blessed Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ. They all have ‘worth’. . .and all that worth is finite and limited, as they are all human, finite, and limited.

However, while one can acknowledge the (limited but still admirable) worth of any given person, there is only one SOVEREIGN LORD to whom we owe everything, who is our ONE TRUE GOD, and that acknowledgement of His perfection, glory, Kingship, and rule is that of INFINITE worth.

All others have ‘finite’ worth. Only God is infinitely worthy, infinitely perfect, infinitely to be given all the ‘worth ship’ that we can give.

Giving ‘worth’ to others does not detract from giving ‘all worth’ to God. Saints are not in competition with God; they ‘reflect’ or magnify God’s worth in them. They cannot be equal to or greater in worth than God; they can’t come anywhere NEAR God in His infinite worth, but they can still have worth.
**

Thanks. So in the Bible there are two instances I can think of where “worship” comes up and I want to understand better how it fits your definition.

Acts 10:25When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I too am a man.”

Rev 19:10Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God.” For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Were these people given too much “worth” or how does this work?

 

[SyroMalankara]

Thanks. So in the Bible there are two instances I can think of where “worship” comes up and I want to understand better how it fits your definition.

Acts 10:25When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I too am a man.”

Rev 19:10Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God.” For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Were these people given too much “worth” or how does this work?

Orthodoxinfo states the following: The interesting thing among these words and the Hebrew ones, is that the Greek has the actions of bowing and prostrating separated from the word for worship, which was not the case in the Hebrew. Hebrew was much more context sensitive while the Greek seems to use the word “proskuneo” to only refer to worship which can only be given to God. It is never used to refer specifically to prostration or bowing, though the elements of that are included in worship to God as indicated in the definition. However, to indicate a bowing action or a prostration, separate Greek words are used which are not always in the context of worship.

Biblically speaking, bowing, and even prostration, was not in and of itself an indication of worship as much as it was a sign of respect and recognition of authority. However, they were used extensively in worship, for the ultimate recognition of respect and authority is to be recognized in our worship of God. Thus, bowing is used both to other people and to God. When it is used in relation to God, or anything being recognized as a god, it was designated as an act of worship.

But what was the dividing line in the three instances where it was recognized that the people fell down to worship when it was improper to do so? Obviously it was clear to Peter and the angel that the intent of the actions being done to them was not just respect and honor, but an act of worship. What “clues” to that effect were given we are not told, just that these people were bowing and prostrating themselves with the intent to worship Peter and the angel. It is significant here that the prostration had to be qualified that it was with this intent to worship. If falling down to another person in and of itself could only be interpreted as worship, there would have been no need for the further clarification.

Bowing and prostrating are totally context sensitive both in the Old and New Testaments. It basically conveys a respect and submission to another person. When done to God, it becomes an act of worship, our ultimate act of submission to the King of Kings. When done to God, it becomes an act of worship in that from our hearts we are devoted to serve Him and Him alone. No other gods before us. Therefore, we cannot judge a person who bows to another as worshiping them, there simply is no Biblical support for such a conclusion.

 

[dronald]

But what was the dividing line in the three instances where it was recognized that the people fell down to worship when it was improper to do so? Obviously it was clear to Peter and the angel that the intent of the actions being done to them was not just respect and honor, but an act of worship. What “clues” to that effect were given we are not told, just that these people were bowing and prostrating themselves with the intent to worship Peter and the angel. It is significant here that the prostration had to be qualified that it was with this intent to worship. If falling down to another person in and of itself could only be interpreted as worship, there would have been no need for the further clarification.

Bowing and prostrating are totally context sensitive both in the Old and New Testaments. It basically conveys a respect and submission to another person. When done to God, it becomes an act of worship, our ultimate act of submission to the King of Kings. When done to God, it becomes an act of worship in that from our hearts we are devoted to serve Him and Him alone. No other gods before us. Therefore, we cannot judge a person who bows to another as worshiping them, there simply is no Biblical support for such a conclusion.

So what did they do wrong? You’re saying it was never explained?

 

[Cube2]

Amen Dorothy. Our Blessed Mother gave birth to Jesus, she is the Mother of God, she was there at the beginning of our Lord’s public ministry and she was at the foot of the Cross. Catholics hold Scripture to be Sacred but also Tradition.

Sacred tradition was made of equal authority to the Word of God by men during the Council of Trent, (AD 1545-63).
theblackcordelias.wordpress.com/2009/02/28/sacred-tradition-sacred-scriptureequal/
This is of great concern as it implies that the teaching was a latter introduction of what was not part of the canon.
When the Bible was compiled around 300AD, the issue of Sacred tradition was unknown. It took over a 1000 years for sacred traditions to be allowed into the church and be elevated to equal the formally accepted canon.

 

[Cube2]

For one to get full benefit of the Word, we must accept the Gospel message as Divine Truth for our Salvation.

Sure!

I can believe to a certain degree that individuals in your Catholic upbringing have not embraced the Gospel as they should have, causing a lack of love for Jesus. However, you are intent on pitting the Universal Church and her Teachings against Scripture and the personal study of it. That is just wrong. You have been caught up in ambitious private interpretation, which can twist some things to fit your personal desires.

My worry is the introduction of new teachings that have become pertinent faith.
Examples are:

1. Doctrine of the seven sacraments in 1439 AD
2. the equality of the authority of Sacred tradition to the Bible in 1545 AD.
   My claim may appear wrong, but when a whole list of emergent teachings is pulled out from the many dogmas, its a pretty call for concern.

These ‘cafeteria’ Catholics, like the ones you seem to have been raised in, cause the Church so many problems! There is no righteous prayer from them for the holiness of their leaders! There is a huge misconception that priests are given more holiness and we can just use them when we want and they deliver God to us without any brotherly support to them from us. This leads to their isolation from the faithful and are put to more tests and temptations. Their sheep are scattered by wolves and do not give what they have received. They, in turn, are not lifted up and encouraged in the faith. Even Paul gave praise to those who lifted his spirit.

If there are ‘cafeteria Catholics’, as you claim, then its a real concern.
Its a command of the bible that we pray for our spiritual leaders, and even political leaders. No dispute on that as it is clearly stated in scripture.

Jesus said that the wheat and the tares should be allowed to grow together until the time of harvest, when the separation will be done. It remains that even if one is teaching a doctrine that is not for Christ, there would be no immediate punishment.
Catholics claim that protestants left the true Church, while the protestants claim that the Catholic church has been infiltrated with non biblical teachings.
Like in this thread, 'Mary worship" is viewed differently by the 2 groups. We should find out how Jesus and the apostles viewed it, and follow that.

 

[Cube2]

Cube,

With regard to bible studies…thanks to the grace of God and the challenges re: bible study presented by Protestants…we have MANY bible studies in our churches, and it is spreading to other Catholic churches. Perhaps in some places it isn’t that strong yet …but it definitely is growing.

So, please do not perpetuate the myth that “It was not a common practice, and its not a common practice even today.”

Peace,

Dorothy,
Its not a myth! I have seen instances where bibles have been forbidden, though things have changed drastically.
In this link, forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=272675; it was thread on, "Did the Church ever ban laity having a Bible?"
The Council of Tarragona of 1234, in its second canon, ruled that:
“No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days, so that they may be burned…”- The Church Council of Tarragona 1234 AD; 2nd Cannon - Source : D. Lortsch, Historie de la Bible en France, 1910, p.14.

It is documented that bibles were forbidden on private reading. Also, during the inquisitions, those in possession of pieces of scripture were regarded as heretics and were punished severely.

But as you say, if the wave of private studying of the Bible is building up, then, the power of the Word will take effect.

 

[JRRTFAN]

Sacred tradition was made of equal authority to the Word of God by men during the Council of Trent, (AD 1545-63).
theblackcordelias.wordpress.com/2009/02/28/sacred-tradition-sacred-scriptureequal/
This is of great concern as it implies that the teaching was a latter introduction of what was not part of the canon.
When the Bible was compiled around 300AD, the issue of Sacred tradition was unknown. It took over a 1000 years for sacred traditions to be allowed into the church and be elevated to equal the formally accepted canon.

Come again? It was sacred tradition that compiled the Bible. How can it have been unknown? What was unknown was sola scriptura.

 

[Dorothy]

Dorothy,
Its not a myth! I have seen instances where bibles have been forbidden, though things have changed drastically.
In this link, forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=272675; it was thread on, "Did the Church ever ban laity having a Bible?"
The Council of Tarragona of 1234, in its second canon, ruled that:
“No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days, so that they may be burned…”- The Church Council of Tarragona 1234 AD; 2nd Cannon - Source : D. Lortsch, Historie de la Bible en France, 1910, p.14.

It is documented that bibles were forbidden on private reading. Also, during the inquisitions, those in possession of pieces of scripture were regarded as heretics and were punished severely.

But as you say, if the wave of private studying of the Bible is building up, then, the power of the Word will take effect.

If you have read “Catholicism” by Lorraine Boettner you may be getting a lot of out-of-context information. And I am sure there are more anti-Catholic writings out there such as Boettner.

I do remember that when bibles were chained in the Catholic Church it was so people would not walk out with them.,…they were hand written (calligraphy). Those who could read would read the Sacred Scripture in the Church.

I am not saying the Church was without corrupt people in it. That is everywhere, not just in the Catholic Church. But the Truth of what our Lord Jesus Christ taught is not eclipsed by the sins of those in the Church.

Peace,

Dorothy

 

[SyroMalankara]

1. 
   

   So what did they do wrong? You’re saying it was never explained?

   The fact is, the bowing or prostration itself is not what is condemned but the intention of the person doing that act. In this case, these men are being looked upon as demigods or magicmeb, not representatives of the Almighty. This is why they are warned. The same warning can apply to say, for example, someone sees a celebrity and acts crazy or some such act

 

[KathleenGee]

Cube, did you know what happened to the Bible soon after Luther…it began to be printed in various interpretations and more splitting up of Christianity.

Yes, the Church is equal to Scripture in that it has the correct books and interpretation that our Lord and the apostles used and it is the Church that insures we continue with them.

The Council of Trent was the reform of clericalism. The pope had to go through more advisors.

Instead of printing many bibles…which were chained because there were so few of them and it took 340 sheep skins to make one bible, and as we hear the Word of God in the entire Bible in 3 years, and Mass is the time when Catholics come together, that the Mass was universalized for all peoples, and it is the Mass that was printed for the people, called the Roman Missal that continued to be in use up to 1965. And most people couldn’t read for hundreds of years afterwards.

There is alot of hysterics to the spins put out by late forms of Christian bible belief that comes out of our country. English speaking causes the worst spins and fragmentation…and the most anti Catholic bias. Interestingly enough it is the American South and West that are exploding with conversions.

The missals I used as a child had English on one side and Latin on the other.

 

[KathleenGee]

Dronald,

You ask how we worship. Go back a few pages and I have a few…a few excerpts of how we believe.

There is a book out by Tom Nash, ‘The Biblical Roots of the Mass’, and the current one to be used in parishes out here, ‘What Happens at Mass’ by Fr Jeremy Driscoll.

 

[KathleenGee]

Likewise Cube, what bibles were they addressing…and again the expense…they are not doing that to oppose the Word of God…that is spin taking the event out of context.

If you study why they did that, then it would make sense…but if you do not have faith that Christ instituted only one visible Church and not thousands all competing and not wanting to congregate with each other and preferring misperceptions of this and that…well that is what happens.

 

[dronald]

1. 
   
   The fact is, the bowing or prostration itself is not what is condemned but the intention of the person doing that act. In this case, these men are being looked upon as demigods or magicmeb, not representatives of the Almighty. This is why they are warned. The same warning can apply to say, for example, someone sees a celebrity and acts crazy or some such act

1. 
   All John did was “worship” the angel and was told to worship God instead. Doesn’t that mean we shouldn’t worship another by definition of the word as used in the Bible? Likewise Peter with the similar issue.
   
   If I bowed to Peter to “worship” him as you say, wouldn’t he say “don’t do that I am only a man, worship God”?

 

[SyroMalankara]

All John did was “worship” the angel and was told to worship God instead. Doesn’t that mean we shouldn’t worship another by definition of the word as used in the Bible? Likewise Peter with the similar issue.

If I bowed to Peter to “worship” him as you say, wouldn’t he say “don’t do that I am only a man, worship God”?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

All John did was “worship” the angel and was told to worship God instead. Doesn’t that mean we shouldn’t worship another by definition of the word as used in the Bible? Likewise Peter with the similar issue.

If I bowed to Peter to “worship” him as you say, wouldn’t he say “don’t do that I am only a man, worship God”?

But the Bible was not originally written in English, was it? As another poster noted, the actual words used were not English.

In the Douay Rheims translation for Acts 10, the word used was "adored’ and the action noted was ‘falling at the feet’.

In Rev 19, this was given as notes:

And I fell down before his feet, to adore him. And he saith to me: See thou do it not: I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren, who have the testimony of Jesus. Adore God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
[10] I fell down before: St. Augustine (lib. 20, contra Faust, c. 21) is of opinion, that this angel appeared in so glorious a manner, that St. John took him to be God; and therefore would have given him divine honour had not the angel stopped him, by telling him he was but his fellow servant. St. Gregory (Hom. 8, in Evang.) rather thinks that the veneration offered by St. John, was not divine honour, or indeed any other than what might lawfully be given; but was nevertheless refused by the angel, in consideration of the dignity to which our human nature had been raised, by the incarnation of the Son of God, and the dignity of St. John, an apostle, prophet, and martyr.

 

[dronald]

But the Bible was not originally written in English, was it? As another poster noted, the actual words used were not English.

In the Douay Rheims translation for Acts 10, the word used was "adored’ and the action noted was ‘falling at the feet’.

In Rev 19, this was given as notes:

And I fell down before his feet, to adore him. And he saith to me: See thou do it not: I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren, who have the testimony of Jesus. Adore God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
[10] I fell down before: St. Augustine (lib. 20, contra Faust, c. 21) is of opinion, that this angel appeared in so glorious a manner, that St. John took him to be God; and therefore would have given him divine honour had not the angel stopped him, by telling him he was but his fellow servant. St. Gregory (Hom. 8, in Evang.) rather thinks that the veneration offered by St. John, was not divine honour, or indeed any other than what might lawfully be given; but was nevertheless refused by the angel, in consideration of the dignity to which our human nature had been raised, by the incarnation of the Son of God, and the dignity of St. John, an apostle, prophet, and martyr.

What did Cornelius do that would be considered taking it too far and how do you know?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

What did Cornelius do that would be considered taking it too far and how do you know?

What do you say, and how do you know?

 

[KathleenGee]

Dronald,

I was going out the door shortly…I gave some insights into what worship is, how we worship God at Mass, posts #690 and 691.

The liturgy is essentially where earth meets heaven and the rubrics of the Mass must all comform to the Church, to ensure that all movements represent the truth of Christ and His teachings in relation to us.