I am a Mary worshipper

  • Thread starter Thread starter Racer_X
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“The whole point was that outsiders could easily view our treatment of the saints and Mary just like the treatment pagan people give to their (false) gods and goddesses. So as some people understand the word “god”, they are.”

Yes, because the pagan gods are not concieved as being on the same level, even by the pagans themselves, as our One God. There gods are fallible creatures, born of other gods. Our God is the Supreme Being. But seeing as are our Saints are elevated humans in heaven…they are practically like Hercules or some other hero raised to godhood (lower-case g)

“Now WE usually steer far away from using that term because it carries with it many other presumed characteristics that we do not hold regarding the Saints and Mary. Also, it is very hard to make the small “g” god vs. capital “G” God distinction in verbal communication 😉 . So I would do as some have suggested here and avoid using it, as you could create a lot more confusion than you bargained for.”

Exactly. And I wouldn’t say “the goddess Mary” or anything to Protestants because it is too confusing. In the East, this is less of a problem and they are more free with their usage.

But it is true that we have our own Catholic terminology. Some would accuse this of just being a semantics game to trick the Protestants…but its not. We just have our own words, thats all.

Do we have “gods” as many would understand the word? Yes, we have what are equivalent to gods, we just call them Saints.

Do we “worship” them as some would understand the word?
Yes, we just call it “veneration” nowadays in order to distinguish dulia from latria, the latter of which we more precisely call “adoration”.

In a similar vein, do we Catholics have temples?
Yes, we just call them “churches”. But they are effectively temples; they are a house of worship with an altar for sacrafice, images of our Saints (effectively gods with lower-case g), and even the real presence of God in the Eucharist in the tabernacle…

“Or maybe you could throw those idol “worshippers” a bone and say they venerate their false gods etc.”

Well, they actually do. At least based on the distinction between “worship” and “veneration” that is being made here. What the pagans do to their gods, is the same thing we do to our Saints.

They are not offering their gods latria (which we now call worship, or more properly “adoration”)…they are only offering their gods dulia, or “veneration”. Because pagans do not recognize their gods as the Supreme, Self-existant Being. They are more or less just heavenly, super-human beings, but who are nevertheless finite and ultimately created (often being the children of other gods).

The point is, when it comes to Christianity…we Catholics try to make a distinction by saying we “worship” God but “venerate” the Saints to appease the Protestants.

You all claim this is because the meaning of “worship” in English has changed to mean only latria. But has it really?

The pagans do NOT offer their gods latria, but only dulia. Yet we call their dulia “worship” instead of
“veneration”. So it seems in English…worship can still very much mean only dulia and not latria…just for some reason, not when it comes to Christianity.

So yes, it is sort of a word game. We have our gods, we call them Saints. We worship them, we call it veneration. We have temples, we call them churches.

But that is okay, because we have our own terminology and that is good. Maybe effectively the Saints are gods and goddesses, or at least the equivalent…but that just isnt what we call them in our lexicon. And it probably helps to avoid a lot of confusion and differentiate us from the pagans in areas where maybe we aren’t so different…nor necessarily should be.

But let us never forget, or feel the need to deny, that what we would call “gods” if we saw them in a pagan religion, we call Saints. What we would call “temples” if they were in a pagan religion, we call churches. What we would call “worship” if we saw it taking place by pagans, we call veneration.

And there is no need to deny. We should celebrate the fact that the Supreme and Almighty God has raised his beloved and true saints to the same level and position once attributed to the false pagan gods. And He has given them the glory of being worshipped on the same level (dulia) as the false deified hero demi-gods of old.

There is no shame or heresy in saying this.

God is not our equivalent of the pagan gods. Because God is a much Higher idea than the pagan gods. He occupies a rank all to his own in human philisophical conception. The equivalent of the pagan gods in our religion is the Saints…for God Himself is at a much more Supreme level than the pagans ever believed their gods to be.
 
I believe the objectors make a valid point. If what they say is true, that they have actually seen people throw themselves before the image of Mary, crying, weeping and begging, then this truly goes beyond just asking for her intercession. This is primal worship in it’s ultimate form. This kind of behavior should only be before Christ in God.
Code: 
                                      In our parish, none of this goes on that I have seen and we have the Madonna statue up front, just left of the altar. I personally do not directly pray to Mary, as others do. But their prayers are silent, reverent and brief. They do bow and kneel before the statue in prayer.

                                        I only pray directly to our heavenly father in Christ's name. But I certainly believe in the communion of the saints,  both on earth and in heaven. At Mass, all the members call on the saints in heaven, which includes Mary to pray for us. I feel this is justifiable.But falling down, crying and weeping before a statue of the Madonna is not. That is my opinion. :)
 
I don’t say “We don’t worship Mary,” but instead reply “We don’t worship her as if she is a goddess.” (which is the context they accuse us of). Instead I say that “We honor her as if she was the Mother of my Lord and my God, and as such the Mother of all the brethren of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

There were some Christians who began to worship Mary as though she were divine (called Collyridians), and they were rebuked by St. Epiphanius in his treatise against heretics in the 4th century.

See the following This Rock article by Patrick Madrid,
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9410hotm.asp
 
40.png
batteddy:
So yes, it is sort of a word game. We have our gods, we call them Saints.
Click to expand...
I understand your point with respect to the “divinization” of saints. Yet when you use the word “divinization,” it really does smack of Mormonism to the modern mind, just as the word “worship” as applied to the saints smacks of idolatry.

(It just occurred to me that the word “idolatry” might be the occasion for an explanation of “latria,” since we don’t do “idol latria.”)

Yes, by receiving sanctifying grace, we become children of God, heirs of heaven, and sharers in the divine life.

But keep in mind that the definition of “sanctifying grace” is this: “A created sharing in God’s life.”

God does not snip off a piece of Himself to implant in our souls as sanctifying grace. He creates a supernatural life implanting it in our soul, which raises us above the natural state and makes us capable of living in heaven, and of seeing God “face to face” without being entirely shattered.

It is a created share of divine life, not an actual piece of God.

It’s true, sanctifying grace does raise us above our natural state. On Earth, we call it sanctifying grace, in Heaven, we call it “Glory.”

But to call the end result “divinization” or to say that it makes us gods, simply muddies the waters. Such terminology seems to inordinately narrow the gap between the created and the Uncreated, which, even in heaven, will remain infinitely vast.
 
40.png
piety101:
I believe the objectors make a valid point. If what they say is true, that they have actually seen people throw themselves before the image of Mary, crying, weeping and begging, then this truly goes beyond just asking for her intercession. This is primal worship in it’s ultimate form. This kind of behavior should only be before Christ in God.
Click to expand...
Well, it’s over the top, for sure. But even as described, it seems to me to be mere emotionalism, not worship. I don’t think that this is the kind of behavior that God wants of us even in his own worship. Emotional craziness is not worship.
 
PS–I should also mention that some protestant services are over the top as well, as in some pentecostal services. Emotionalism disguised as worship.
 
Jim
There have been many times in my life that I have fallen prostrate on the floor, weeping before God for horrible sins I committed in the past and asking for his mercy. I do not consider that foolish at all, but the inward sorrow of a soul crying out to God. I would imagine after King David's sins, when he entered the temple he fell prostrate before God, weeping and begging God for forgiveness as well. Don't ya think?
 
40.png
piety101:
Jim
Code: 
        There have been many times in my life that I have fallen prostrate on the floor, weeping before God for horrible sins I committed in the past and asking for his mercy. I do not consider that foolish at all, but the inward sorrow of a soul crying out to God. I would imagine after King David's sins, when he entered the temple he fell prostrate before God, weeping and begging God for forgiveness as well. Don't ya think?
Click to expand...
Well, I knew of a priest who always prayed while prostrate on the floor, so I guess it’s OK. However, he was far from emotional, so it’s just a difference in personalities. Still, I think one can be just as sorry for sin even without the emotion; and of course, once you’ve confessed it sacramentally and been forgiven, there’s no need to ask again. (But I’m not saying that one cannot continue to express sorrow for past sins.)

(One of his friends said he would not dare to pray while prostrate, as he would be run over by the kids.)
 
Donna P:
Please quit with this please. To worship anyone other than God is to commit a serious sin. Thou shalt not put false god before Me.

We do NOT worship Mary, Mary does NOT want us to worship her.
Please buy the Catholic Answers Beginning Apologetice book on Defending Mary.

YOu do Catholics a HUGE disservice by calling yourself Catholic and saying we worship Mary. To do so shows a disregard for our Church and Jesus teachings.:nope:
Click to expand...
Did you even read what he said about worship???
 
I am Racer X.

Apparently I have been banned for this little exercise in examining our Faith. (Either this thread or the "So how is Mary not a goddess? thread.) I am not able to log in as Racer X.

I have not even contradicted a teaching of the Church but simply questioned our understanding of those teachings and the *language *we use in expressing it versus the language we use regarding other religions.

If this is the board admins’ idea of outside the realm of apologetics, then I suppose I expect little on this board other than rehashing a handful of the same “acceptable” questions over and over.

Again, thank you to those who responded with reason and good manners. I expect CATHOLICMAN will probably be banned after this post too.
 
Hey Racer (CATHOLICMAN), I understood where you were coming from although I think the problem with this post is how you were espousing your belief.

I think Post #44 said it best. I’m not sure though why you would be outright suspended unless it was deemed that you were simply espousing heretical beliefs which I don’t think you were.
 
The Catholic Church has never taught or promoted worship of Mary as if she were a goddess. The early church consistently made the distinction between honoring (Gk “dulia”) the saints and worship (Gk “latria”) God.

A quick discussion of the latria/dulia distinction can be found here:
ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ204.HTM

In fact, the early church refuted a 4th century heresy called Collyrdianism which worshipped Mary as a goddess. The heresy lasted about 100 years, existing between 350 and 450 A.D. The great opponent of the Collyridian sect was Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis and a close colleague of St. Jerome. One of his most outstanding contributions in defeating the Collyridians was his apologetic Panarion. In his refutation, he addressed both extremes of Marian heresies: Collyridianism (the super-exhaltation of Mary) and Antidicomarianitism (an Arabian movement which demoted and debased Mary’s importance).

Furthermore, in our Catholic Mass, celebrated every day, we say Mary’s name only twice in the entire service: 1) during the Nicene Creed (which many Protestants also recite), when we say “by the power of the Holy Spirit, He was born of the Virgin Mary”, and 2) during the Eucharistic prayer when we pray “Father, in your mercy grant also to us , your children, to enter into our heavenly inheritance in the company of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, and your apostles and saints.” Every Mass, the central devotion of our faith, we only say her name twice. If we are promoting worship of Mary, then we are not doing a very good job of it. http://www.theologyreview.com/ubb/wink.gif

In fact, you can be Catholic and never ask Mary’s intercession. I don’t recommend it, however, because we are one Body of Christ, and we should pray for others and ask others in Christ to pray for us. It St. John the apostle can speak to angels and the “spirits of the just made perfect” in heaven while caught up “in the Spirit” on the Lord’s Day, then it seems rather Scriptural for Catholics to do so as well.
 
batteddy said:
“The whole point was that outsiders could easily view our treatment of the saints and Mary just like the treatment pagan people give to their (false) gods and goddesses. So as some people understand the word “god”, they are.”

Yes, because the pagan gods are not concieved as being on the same level, even by the pagans themselves, as our One God. There gods are fallible creatures, born of other gods. Our God is the Supreme Being. But seeing as are our Saints are elevated humans in heaven…they are practically like Hercules or some other hero raised to godhood (lower-case g)

“Now WE usually steer far away from using that term because it carries with it many other presumed characteristics that we do not hold regarding the Saints and Mary. Also, it is very hard to make the small “g” god vs. capital “G” God distinction in verbal communication 😉 . So I would do as some have suggested here and avoid using it, as you could create a lot more confusion than you bargained for.”

Exactly. And I wouldn’t say “the goddess Mary” or anything to Protestants because it is too confusing. In the East, this is less of a problem and they are more free with their usage.

But it is true that we have our own Catholic terminology. Some would accuse this of just being a semantics game to trick the Protestants…but its not. We just have our own words, thats all.

Do we have “gods” as many would understand the word? Yes, we have what are equivalent to gods, we just call them Saints.

Do we “worship” them as some would understand the word?
Yes, we just call it “veneration” nowadays in order to distinguish dulia from latria, the latter of which we more precisely call “adoration”.

In a similar vein, do we Catholics have temples?
Yes, we just call them “churches”. But they are effectively temples; they are a house of worship with an altar for sacrafice, images of our Saints (effectively gods with lower-case g), and even the real presence of God in the Eucharist in the tabernacle…

“Or maybe you could throw those idol “worshippers” a bone and say they venerate their false gods etc.”

Well, they actually do. At least based on the distinction between “worship” and “veneration” that is being made here. What the pagans do to their gods, is the same thing we do to our Saints.

They are not offering their gods latria (which we now call worship, or more properly “adoration”)…they are only offering their gods dulia, or “veneration”. Because pagans do not recognize their gods as the Supreme, Self-existant Being. They are more or less just heavenly, super-human beings, but who are nevertheless finite and ultimately created (often being the children of other gods).

The point is, when it comes to Christianity…we Catholics try to make a distinction by saying we “worship” God but “venerate” the Saints to appease the Protestants.

You all claim this is because the meaning of “worship” in English has changed to mean only latria. But has it really?

The pagans do NOT offer their gods latria, but only dulia. Yet we call their dulia “worship” instead of
“veneration”. So it seems in English…worship can still very much mean only dulia and not latria…just for some reason, not when it comes to Christianity.

So yes, it is sort of a word game. We have our gods, we call them Saints. We worship them, we call it veneration. We have temples, we call them churches.

But that is okay, because we have our own terminology and that is good. Maybe effectively the Saints are gods and goddesses, or at least the equivalent…but that just isnt what we call them in our lexicon. And it probably helps to avoid a lot of confusion and differentiate us from the pagans in areas where maybe we aren’t so different…nor necessarily should be.

But let us never forget, or feel the need to deny, that what we would call “gods” if we saw them in a pagan religion, we call Saints. What we would call “temples” if they were in a pagan religion, we call churches. What we would call “worship” if we saw it taking place by pagans, we call veneration.

And there is no need to deny. We should celebrate the fact that the Supreme and Almighty God has raised his beloved and true saints to the same level and position once attributed to the false pagan gods. And He has given them the glory of being worshipped on the same level (dulia) as the false deified hero demi-gods of old.

There is no shame or heresy in saying this.

God is not our equivalent of the pagan gods. Because God is a much Higher idea than the pagan gods. He occupies a rank all to his own in human philisophical conception. The equivalent of the pagan gods in our religion is the Saints…for God Himself is at a much more Supreme level than the pagans ever believed their gods to be.
Click to expand...

WHAT???This is not the teaching of the Church did you and RacerX get together and decide to debase Roman Catholic teaching…none of what you say is true. Your profile says you want to be a priest…you better do your homework and try reading the Bible. Asking Mary and or the Saints to pray for you is not worship…any priest that would tell you otherwise would be excommunicated for heresy…fortunately you are not a priest and I pray you find your way in the truth before that could happen.
 
I am not questioning any Truth of the Catholic faith, Deus Vult.

I am merely trying to have an honest discussion about the* language* we use to discuss it.

I am not trying to place our Saints on the same level as Almighty God.

There is an infinite divide. Obviously.

I am merely admitting that we do place them on roughly the same level (perhaps even a somewhat higher level) once occupied in the human mind by the pagan gods.

But there is an infinite divide between the pagan conception of a “god” and our conception of the One True God.

All I’m saying is that if you were to compare our religion to paganism…the analogies would be something like this:

temple = church
shaman = priest
gods =…SAINTS!!

Because it does a great disservice to our GOD to act as if he is our equivalent of the pagan gods.

He is not. God has no equivalent in paganism (except when it starts getting philosophical). God is on a level all to his own.

The gods of old were rather human figures. Super-human, but still finite creatures. And the level once given to gods in the human heart, is now given to Saints.

But for Almighty God, there is an entirely new and Higher level. One which has no analogy in the pagan religions.

To say that God holds the place Zeus once held is ridiculous. Zeus was finite. Zeus had a father and mother, for crying out loud!

Zeus is much more comparable to, say, St. Michael the Archangel than he is to Almighty God.

Because God himself is infinitely higher than the pagans ever believed Zeus to be.

Can you understand that semantical and analogical point?
 
40.png
batteddy:
I am not questioning any Truth of the Catholic faith, Deus Vult.

I am merely trying to have an honest discussion about the* language* we use to discuss it.

I am not trying to place our Saints on the same level as Almighty God.

There is an infinite divide. Obviously.

I am merely admitting that we do place them on roughly the same level (perhaps even a somewhat higher level) once occupied in the human mind by the pagan gods.

But there is an infinite divide between the pagan conception of a “god” and our conception of the One True God.

All I’m saying is that if you were to compare our religion to paganism…the analogies would be something like this:

temple = church
shaman = priest
gods =…SAINTS!!

Because it does a great disservice to our GOD to act as if he is our equivalent of the pagan gods.

He is not. God has no equivalent in paganism (except when it starts getting philosophical). God is on a level all to his own.

The gods of old were rather human figures. Super-human, but still finite creatures. And the level once given to gods in the human heart, is now given to Saints.

But for Almighty God, there is an entirely new and Higher level. One which has no analogy in the pagan religions.

To say that God holds the place Zeus once held is ridiculous. Zeus was finite. Zeus had a father and mother, for crying out loud!

Zeus is much more comparable to, say, St. Michael the Archangel than he is to Almighty God.

Because God himself is infinitely higher than the pagans ever believed Zeus to be.

Can you understand that semantical and analogical point?
Click to expand...
I get what you are saying. I just think that it’s quite confusing at first glance and your view can easily be misconstrued.
 
RacerX is correct in his understanding of “worship”, insofar as the word simply means “honor.” Webster shows two meanings for the verb “worship”…

Main Entry: 2worship
Function: verb
1 : to honor or reverence as a divine being or supernatural power
2 : to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion

If you contend that meaning one is no differnt than meaning two, then I suggest you haven’t paid very close attention to Catholic teaching. A word has definitions and it has connotations. In Catholic teaching, which is merely translated into English, there has always been a substantial difference bewteen devotion to Mary and adoration of the Blessed Trinity. I can adore my wife, but that doesn’t mean I practice idolatry by doing so. Those that equate such adoration of creatures to idolatry are poor students of Christianity.

"Christian worship in fact is of itself worship offered to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, or, as the liturgy puts it, to the Father through Christ in the Spirit. From this point of worship is rightly extended, though in a substantially different way, first and foremost and in a special manner, to the Mother of the Lord and then to the saints, in whom the Church proclaims the Paschal Mystery, for they have suffered with Christ and have been glorified with Him." (MARIALIS CULTUS: APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION FOR THE RIGHT ORDERING AND DEVELOPMENT OF DEVOTION TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY: by HIS HOLINESS PAUL VI, 2 FEBRUARY 1974, catholic-forum.com/saints/bvm00012.htm)

***"Although the veneration of the faithful for Mary is superior to their devotion to the other saints, it is nevertheless inferior to the cult of adoration reserved to God, from which it essentially differs. " ***(John Paul II, General Audience, Faithful have filial devotion to Mary, 22 Oct 97, 212.77.1.245/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1997/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_22101997_en.html)

Those that exaggerate the devotion due to Mary do a disservice to the authentic teaching of the Catholic Faith.

The problem is with those that deny a substantial difference between the adoration of God and the honor due to one’s father and mother, to Mary and the saints. By denying a substantial difference, then you contradict Catholic doctrine and instead present a false caricature of Catholicism.
 
40.png
petra:
Christ is King, and Mary is Queen Mother. She is not herself a Queen because she is not Christ’s wife, she is His mother. What did you anticpate the passage in Revelation proving? I see the mother of Christ in that passage.
Click to expand...
Petra,

**Yes, the passage mentions the mother of Christ. However, she is **“clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars”(Rev. 12:1). **In other words she is Queen of the Cosmos (the heavens). **

**I have already explained that Heaven is not subject to the earthly. You can not say that an earthly monarchy is similar to heaven. In an Earthly monarchy usually the queen is wife of the King. Heaven does not work that way. Heaven is more complex. Christ is king and one with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Mary is the mother of the person of Christ and wife to the person of the Holy Spirit. She is queen of Heaven and what is binding in Heaven is binding on Earth. Therefore, she is queen of Heaven and Earth and she is also our Mother. **

May God bless you.
 
40.png
batteddy:
I am not questioning any Truth of the Catholic faith, Deus Vult.

I am merely trying to have an honest discussion about the* language* we use to discuss it.

I am not trying to place our Saints on the same level as Almighty God.

There is an infinite divide. Obviously.

I am merely admitting that we do place them on roughly the same level (perhaps even a somewhat higher level) once occupied in the human mind by the pagan gods.

But there is an infinite divide between the pagan conception of a “god” and our conception of the One True God.

All I’m saying is that if you were to compare our religion to paganism…the analogies would be something like this:

temple = church
shaman = priest
gods =…SAINTS!!

Because it does a great disservice to our GOD to act as if he is our equivalent of the pagan gods.

He is not. God has no equivalent in paganism (except when it starts getting philosophical). God is on a level all to his own.

The gods of old were rather human figures. Super-human, but still finite creatures. And the level once given to gods in the human heart, is now given to Saints.

But for Almighty God, there is an entirely new and Higher level. One which has no analogy in the pagan religions.

To say that God holds the place Zeus once held is ridiculous. Zeus was finite. Zeus had a father and mother, for crying out loud!

Zeus is much more comparable to, say, St. Michael the Archangel than he is to Almighty God.

Because God himself is infinitely higher than the pagans ever believed Zeus to be.

Can you understand that semantical and analogical point?
Click to expand...
I dont think I misunderstand you…you said…“Do we have “gods” as many would understand the word? Yes, we have what are equivalent to gods, we just call them Saints.” We do not have gods I dont care how you slice it! You are correct when you say…
" God has no equivalent in paganism (except when it starts getting philosophical). God is on a level all to his own." But I dont think anyone has ever questioned that…so whats your point. Then you go on to say…“Zeus is much more comparable to, say, St. Michael the Archangel than he is to Almighty God.” The Roman Catholic Church does not believe or even compare Saints to “gods” this is heresy. The concept of “gods” is LDS and or JW. It is not a Roman Catholic teaching.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top