In the context of some non-Catholic Christian religions, is it wrong or a “sin” to honor former U.S. President Abraham Lincoln and was a “sin” committ

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I think that Catholics DO worship Mary, in the common understanding of the word.

But what is that ?​

The vocabulary of “worship” includes words such as

• latria
• adoratio
• dulia
• proskunesis
• douleia
• latreia
• adoration
• veneration
• worship

• and

• all of them have a history
• many overlap without being synonymous
• all have been used in various ways
• several are from the Bible;

• so it can’t be assumed that “worship” always or necessarily refers to the attitude creatures owe to God & must not give to another. For that is not always the case.

“Worship” can refer to the behaviour of

• Abraham in Gen. 23 towards the sons of Heth
• the Israelites towards “God and the King” in 1 Chron. 29.20
• the children of Israel owed to God in view of the first commandment
• those who offered proskunesis to Jesus in the gospels: which or may not imply recognition of His Divine status
  It can also refer to religious behaviours incompatible with the duty owed to the God of Israel or rejected in the NT texts (cults of “foreign gods”; Acts 10.25 f; 14; Rev. 19 & 21).

So the issue can’t be disposed of as easily as is sometimes thought. (BTW, this is not an attempt to throw dust in people’s eyes - just in case that should be suspected)

All of us have an agenda in posting in this forum–otherwise we wouldn’t post. This is the NON-CATHOLIC forum, Jimmy. We have a right to disagree with you.

No, I was never banned on this forum.

As a matter of fact, you have given me a platform or opportunity to congratulate the moderators of this forum–the entire Catholic forum, for being open-minded and permitting a lot of heated *ad **hominem *postings, like Jimmy’s above. This insures a successful forum, with a lot of posters and points of view.

I am not posting bad information. re conception and infancy stories of antiquity. It is common knowledge that famous accounts written in antiquity of famous people of antiquity shrouded them with legends of their conception, birth, precocious early deeds and miracles. The attribution of Mary’s perpetual virginity is not an early invention. That Jesus was born of a virgin was attributed to him in the early centuries, but there is no comment about perpetual virginity. This idea is Greek and Roman, based on their virgin goddesses, Artemis (Diana) and Athena (Minerva), the latter a very powerful goddess, created by springing directly from Zeus, who defeated the Trojans at Troy. Jews do not value celibacy. Their entire religion centers around the home and family. So this idea could not have come from the Jewish apostles.

It could actually be much earlier - the goddess Anath is often called “the maiden Anath” in Canaanite texts; one of which says “a virgin shall conceive & bear a son”. Sound famiIiar ? Isaiah is unlikely to have known it, as it is 500 years older than the oracle of which Isa. 7.14 is a part, & the culture which produced it was destroyed about 1200 BC. But it’s quite possible he & the author of the older text were familiar with the notion of a goddess who was sexually active but also always a virgin, because she represented the ever-repeated seasonal cycle. This figure is probably a source of the woman in Rev. 12.​

So perpetual virginity is not so strange to the Biblical environment as may seem - it just happens to be of a somewhat surprising kind.

And where is Mary? She’s not in the epistles, and mentioned much (at all?) in Acts.

1.14 - & Galatians 4.4.​

Dead or alive, if she were prominent in the early Christian theology, she would have been mentioned, as so many other people were.

Doesn’t follow. Just as it does not follow that because she was & is very prominent, she must always have been. Christians (including Catholics) have a bad habit of making the wholly gratuitous & illogical assumption that what is important for them, in doctrine, devotion or theology, “must have” been equally important in previous centuries, or for the Apostles, or both. There is not the slightest justification for such an assumption: we have our concerns - previous generations had theirs; which are often not ours at all, & need not be​

When the saints were thought of, the emphasis was not upon Mary, but upon the martyrs generally. There are traces of the veneration of the martyrs in Revelation; as in the mention of Antipas in Rev. 2. Bearing witness is mentioned several times, & a reference to martyrdom is inescapable in several of the texts. The Christian emphasis on martyrdom can be seen in references to the witness borne by Jesus; the deaths of John the Baptist, Stephen, James, possibly John the Apostle, & may derive from the Jewish veneration of the prophets - especially as Jesus is depicted as another Jeremiah & Moses.

Emphasis on Mary developed later - which is irrelevant to the issue of whether it is a legitimate development: the

• age
• explicit development
• authenticity
• genetic continuity
  of a doctrine may - or may not - imply or be implied by one another; “older” need not imply “better”,or “truer” or “to be preferred”, or “more adequate”.

And Jimmy, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

 

[guanophore]

I think that Catholics DO worship Mary, in the common understanding of the word.

This is an interesting insight into your thinking. What you think about what Catholics do, and what they actually do, are two different things (very fortunately). It is not possible to worship without intention. Anyone who intends to worship someone other than God has commited a mortal sin, and is hellbound.

All of us have an agenda in posting in this forum–otherwise we wouldn’t post. This is the NON-CATHOLIC forum, Jimmy. We have a right to disagree with you.

No, I was never banned on this forum.

Give it time! Just because you are posting on the section devoted to non-Catholic religions does not mean you don’t have to follow the rules. The CAF rules apply to ALL the topic areas equally. It is not appropriate to pander anti-Catholic bigotry over here any more than it is on the Apologetics threads.

As a matter of fact, you have given me a platform or opportunity to congratulate the moderators of this forum–the entire Catholic forum, for being open-minded and permitting a lot of heated *ad **hominem *postings, like Jimmy’s above. This insures a successful forum, with a lot of posters and points of view.

Keep in mind that the purpose of the forum is to provide Catholic Answers. This is not a venue for you to promote your own personal agenda.

I am not posting bad information.

I think that may all depend upon one’s perspecective. I have read several of your postings that reflect the culture of death in which we live, rather than the Kingdom of Life which Jesus brought. This to me is “bad”.
1234;3335460:
re conception and infancy stories of antiquity. It is common knowledge that famous accounts written in antiquity of famous people of antiquity shrouded them with legends of their conception, birth, precocious early deeds and miracles. The attribution of Mary’s perpetual virginity is not an early invention. That Jesus was born of a virgin was attributed to him in the early centuries, but there is no comment about perpetual virginity. This idea is Greek and Roman, based on their virgin goddesses, Artemis (Diana) and Athena (Minerva), the latter a very powerful goddess, created by springing directly from Zeus, who defeated the Trojans at Troy. Jews do not value celibacy. Their entire religion centers around the home and family. So this idea could not have come from the Jewish apostles.

I affirm the accuracy of this information. however, supposing there were types and forshadowings of the fulfillment of God’s plan? Supposing that the Bible means just what it says, that the Apostles got their teaching from Jesus?

And where is Mary? She’s not in the epistles, and mentioned much (at all?) in Acts. Dead or alive, if she were prominent in the early Christian theology, she would have been mentioned, as so many other people were.

No, there were a great many persons that are not mentioned. The NT is only a sliver of the Sacred Tradition that was entrusted to the Apostles. Most of the 12 are not mentioned in the NT. Does that mean they were not “prominent”? On the contrary, we have whole sections of the world reflecting Christianity by apostles not mentioned in the Acts or the Epistles. This is faulty reasoning.

And Jimmy, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Are you already throwing the other members out?

 

[rpp]

FaithofAbraham;3335481:

You should have asked if wishing Liberty and Justice for all is a sin, considering that Ladies Libertas and Justitia are goddesses the Romans worshiped.

Ha!

I think that Catholics DO worship Mary, in the common understanding of the word.

It appears your understanding of history is equivalent with your understanding of the Catholic Church.

When you say that Catholics worship Mary, you cannot deny that you are reading minds. Believe me, your mind-reading skills are just as good as anyone else’s.

But then, your posts are completely off topic attempts to bait people. Now, back to the topic.

 

[graceandglory]

I think that Catholics DO worship Mary, in the common understanding of the word.

Let’s just say, that in your protestant common understanding, that some Catholics “worship” Mary.

Perhaps then, it would be correct to say that according to **our **Catholic common understanding, most protestants don’t worship, revere, and honor GOD.

My comment isn’t meant to be a tit for tat argument, but rather I am trying to point out the importance of at least agreeing on definitions.