Mary and Saint worship

[Maranatha]

Boy, that would open up a can of worms. Let’s say we change the word “pray” in regards to saints to “petition”. Then 50 years from now, whenever someone is looking at “old Catholic” literature, they would come to the conclusion, "Hey, you Catholics used to pray to saints!!! What’s up with that!!!

Then they will say that we trying to get the Saints to sign a petition so we can get changes to Canocial law on the ballot. Is this the way The Catholic Church changed dogma?



I agree with you - as always, it’s up to the recipient to find out what the speaker / author intended to convey.

 

[MariaG]

Maybe, then again if the intent is to accurately convey the Church’s teachings, adjustments may need to be made. The meaning of words change…that’s why over time we need new biblical translations.

That is what apologetics is for. Explaining the faith.

“Born again” christians define born again in a different way than Catholics and sacramental protestants. Should we change the words we use so they won’t become confused?

Lutherans (and many other protestants)define Faith differently than Catholics. should we change our 2000 years of use of words so Protestants don’t become confused?

While I certainly do believe it is important for Catholics Christians to educate ourselves and help explain differences, it comes off somewhat arrogant for you to suggest that Catholics should change their 2000 years worth of language usage because people misunderstand what we mean. I know that was not your intent. But can you see it from this side?

<Catholics have used the word “to pray” for over 1500 years in the manner defined. We in fact have these definitions and anyone can look them up to see for themselves that Catholics have defined Pray in this manner. Same for worship, devotion, honor, highest honors etc. Protestants in the last 50 -500 years have narrowed the definition and find the Catholic one invalid. Change your definition in order so us Protestants can understand you better.>

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[rr1213]

I agree with you - as always, it’s up to the recipient to find out what the speaker / author intended to convey.

I disagree with you there. Assuming that the speaker wishes to convey a thought or concept to his audience, it is incumbent on him to know the best means by which his point can be made and understood. That requires that he know the audience to whom he is speaking. If that audience has a different understanding of terminology, the speaker should make adjustments so that his audience can properly understand. That is, if the speaker wishes the audience to properly understand…which persumably he does or he wouldn’t be taking the time to speak to them.

E.g., what good does it do for anyone if in a presentation I continually refer to “the sinister” meaning the “left side” if my audience is going to think I mean something a bit more nefarious?

 

[NotWorthy]

Maybe, then again if the intent is to accurately convey the Church’s teachings, adjustments may need to be made. The meaning of words change…that’s why over time we need new biblical translations.

No, we just need to properly catechize our people.

I think the “definition” of pray has not been entirely innocent. It’s similar to all the religious faiths that used to call their preachers “Father”. This happened until the 1920’s or 30’s, I believe. Now they don’t, and what do they ask Catholics? “Why do you call your priests Father? Don’t you know Jesus said don’t call anyone
Father except for God?”

 

[rr1213]

That is what apologetics is for. Explaining the faith.

“Born again” christians define born again in a different way than Catholics and sacramental protestants. Should we change the words we use so they won’t become confused?

Lutherans (and many other protestants)define Faith differently than Catholics. should we change our 2000 years of use of words so Protestants don’t become confused?

While I certainly do believe it is important for Catholics Christians to educate ourselves and help explain differences, it comes off somewhat arrogant for you to suggest that Catholics should change their 2000 years worth of language usage because people misunderstand what we mean. I know that was not your intent. But can you see it from this side?

<Catholics have used the word “to pray” for over 1500 years in the manner defined. We in fact have these definitions and anyone can look them up to see for themselves that Catholics have defined Pray in this manner. Same for worship, devotion, honor, highest honors etc. Protestants in the last 50 -500 years have narrowed the definition and find the Catholic one invalid. Change your definition in order so us Protestants can understand you better.>

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

Should you change your use of words so that Protestants don’t get confused? If you wish to communicate with Protestants…yes.

More important than communicating to Protestants, though, is communicating effectively to your own Catholic Church members. From some of the posts I’ve seen, I’d hazard a guess that a decent number of Catholics are confused by use of the word “pray” in a manner that does not comport with its current meaning.

Remember, we’re speaking about an English word here…“pray”. The meaning has changed in the time since the Catholic Church began using the word in the English language. The English word certainly has not been in use by the Catholic Church for the last 2000 years because modern English has not been around anywhere that long.

 

[Maranatha]

I disagree with you there. Assuming that the speaker wishes to convey a thought or concept to his audience, it is incumbent on him to know the best means by which his point can be made and understood. That requires that he know the audience to whom he is speaking. If that audience has a different understanding of terminology, the speaker should make adjustments so that his audience can properly understand. That is, if the speaker wishes the audience to properly understand…which persumably he does or he wouldn’t be taking the time to speak to them.

E.g., what good does it do for anyone if in a presentation I continually refer to “the sinister” meaning the “left side” if my audience is going to think I mean something a bit more nefarious?

Speakers are frequently heard by multiple audience. If a Catholic is speaking to Catholics and we know what is meant then that is sufficient. If a Gospel writer was writing to a Jewish crowd in the 1st Century, they would not and should not change their text because Greek was the common tongue of the day.

 

[rr1213]

If a Gospel writer was writing to a Jewish crowd in the 1st Century, they would not and should not change their text because Greek was the common tongue of the day.

I don’t know about that…

“20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.” (1 Cor. 9: NIV)

In other words, if Paul believed that he was not effectively communicating to his audience, Jew or Gentile, because the meaning of the words he was using had changed through the ages…I suspect that he would be “all things to all men” and use modern language in order to make his point.

 

[NotWorthy]

Maybe, then again if the intent is to accurately convey the Church’s teachings, adjustments may need to be made. The meaning of words change…that’s why over time we need new biblical translations.

No, we just need to properly catechize our people.

I think the changing of the “definition” of pray has not been entirely innocent. It’s similar to all the religious faiths that used to call their preachers “Father”. This happened until the 1920’s or 30’s, I believe. Now they don’t, and what do they ask Catholics? “Why do you call your priests Father? Don’t you know Jesus said don’t call anyone
Father except for God?”

 

[NotWorthy]

I don’t know about that…

“20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.” (1 Cor. 9: NIV)

In other words, if Paul believed that he was not effectively communicating to his audience, Jew or Gentile, because the meaning of the words he was using had changed through the ages…I suspect that he would be “all things to all men” and use modern language in order to make his point.

Yes, and this can be taken too far. That’s how we got the inclusion Bible.

You might be reading more into what Paul was saying here. He became Greek by dealing with the Greek’s god and revealing that God the Father is the “unknown god” which the Greeks had a temple to. That’s how Paul became his audience.

 

[Fidelis]

If the meaning of the English word “pray” has changed that much over time, then maybe the Catholic Church should employ a different term so that the concept it is trying to communicate does not become confused by the meaning ascribed to the word today.

I think there’s been enough dumbing down of language.

Fact is, Protestants are told by Catholics in no uncertain terms what this term and others they don’t like mean. What is the usual result? “Oh, thank you for explaining that. Now I know it is not Catholic intent to worship as God those they pray to.”??

No! Except for the occasional person asking in sincere good faith, the response is usually more arguing or acting like no one has ever offered an explanation on this. That’s why we get the same stupid questions over and over and over and over and over again. Bigots don’t want answers and they don’t care what you say – they cannot be happy until you accept their beliefs.

All you can do is is thoroughly and charitably explain it once to a person. If they don’t accept it, too bad for them. Shake the dust from your sandals and move on.

 

[rr1213]

Geez people. You’d think I was speaking to fundamentalists wanting to hold on to the archaic “thees” and “thous” of the King James Bible, not Catholic apologists. Language changes folks…it’s really not a Protestant conspiracy. To communicate effectively you need to use language that is understood by your audience. You still may have disagreements even if you do that (reference post above by Fidelis) but at least you’ll know that you are talking about the same thing. It’s a wonder that you guys are holding the mass in English rather than Latin…oh, no, I’ve probably opened up another can of worms knowing the traditionalist bent of some CA posters.

 

[NotWorthy]

Geez people. You’d think I was speaking to fundamentalists wanting to hold on to the archaic “thees” and “thous” of the King James Bible, not Catholic apologists.

Uhhhhhhhh, you didn’t know that Vatican III is going to instigate the return of the “thee’s and thou’s” like we used to? Look for it next year.

I still think changing “pray” would present problems when people in the year 2050 pick up a Scott Hahn book written in 2004. “Hey, those crazy Catholics used to pray to Mary!!!!”

 

[valient_Lucy]

As Catholics, we pray to (or “through”), kneel to, and praise Mary and the saints. Protestants claim that prayer, praise, and kneeling combined constitute worship, and hence Catholics worship Mary and the saints. If veneration and worship externally look the same, what is the fundamental difference between the two. Is there a difference or are we just splitting hairs?

God Bless and Thanks

For Catholics, worship (also called latria or adoration) is the Sacrifice of the Mass. If a Catholic attempted to offer Mary on the altar, or to offer the Mass to Mary, then that would certainly be idolatry. Other actions, such as prayer, singing hymns, are not, in and of themselves, acts of worship, the way the Mass is. They could be, if the person intended to worship Mary or another saint. If they intended to honor Mary or a saint, and in doing so give glory to God, then they are not worshipping them.

 

[HailMary]

Well, I was taught we pray with the saints, not to them.

No we pray to them. Prayer, in its fundamental meaning, means petition.

Also look up what latria, hyperdulia, and dulia mean.

 

[Fidelis]

Geez people. You’d think I was speaking to fundamentalists wanting to hold on to the archaic “thees” and “thous” of the King James Bible, not Catholic apologists. Language changes folks…it’s really not a Protestant conspiracy. To communicate effectively you need to use language that is understood by your audience. You still may have disagreements even if you do that (reference post above by Fidelis) but at least you’ll know that you are talking about the same thing. It’s a wonder that you guys are holding the mass in English rather than Latin…oh, no, I’ve probably opened up another can of worms knowing the traditionalist bent of some CA posters.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, you don’t have to be a fundamentalist to lament the demise of “thees” and “thous.” Our modern illiterate age has forgotten that these words are not simply archaic ways of saying “you” and “Yours,” but were/are used to denote a more intimate or deferential degree of relationship. That’s why in some modern Bible translations, they are retained in some places, but not others – it depends on the context of personal address, more or less intimate or deferential, like when someone is speaking to God, or a respected person.

The fact that people can’t tell the difference between thee and you, and pray and worship says nothing about those words, but only how dull and utilitarian our language has become. If the solution is to dumb down our language so that undereducated and/or lazy illiterates won’t feel thus, our culture is just taking another step down the slippery slope of crudity and barbarism. The fact that newspapers have to be printed at an 8th grade level – and some people have trouble reading newspapers – tells you how far our language has sunk. Soon we’ll all be sounding like Beevis and Butthead.

 

[dattaswami]

The Father & Jesus

Jesus is said to be born to only mother without Father. He always praised Father and did not regard His mother so much. When a lady cried that His mother is great, He said that the follower of the instruction of His Father is really great. What is the inner meaning of all this? Does this mean that He disregarded His mother and praised the non-existing Father? No. In His language the Father is God. The mother is the primordial energy. He has gone to the final stage of divine knowledge and realized that God is the root of the root cause. An atheist does not accept Father and believes in the sole existence of mother (nature).

A theist believes in both. A realized devotee believes only God, since the nature is also created by God. Without realizing this inner concept, the Christianity is divided into two schools of son and mother taking everything in physical sense. The son of virgin means the concept of science, which says that a child is produced from Nature which is in the form of parents.

In science, both mother and father are equally important representing the sperm and ovum. This is the material sense, which is not here. In spiritual sense, both are nature or mother only. There are so many couples without children. The will of God is the father without which no child is produced. But God is hidden always and is inferred by knowledge. This point is represented in the example of father and mother even in physical sense.

Therefore, Jesus caught the root of root cause, who is the God or divine Father and not this primordial energy or mother up to which only science can go based on perceptional analysis. This does not mean that Jesus really disregarded His mother and this explanation also does not mean that one should disregard the mother. In the physical sense both are equal because both are mother only in spiritual sense. God is the father in the spiritual sense, who is the hidden cause in both the concept and simile.

At the Lotus Feet of His Holiness Sri Dattaswami

Anil Antony

www.universal-spirituality.org
Universal Spirituality for World Peace
antonyanil@universal-spirituality.org

 

[mikeledes]

How does the Bible use the word prayer? Is there a specific Hebrew or Greek word used when we are specifically praying to God. I’m not a Greek or Hebrew scholar, but there must be a word for “prayer” since it is used so many times in the Bible. In Spanish, “resar” and “orar” both mean prayer and can be used in reference to God or the saints. Should the same word used in petitioning God be used to petition a saint or Mary? Is the Biblical word for prayer intrinsically an act of worship?

Thnaks and God Bless

 

[jemfinch]

If veneration and worship externally look the same, what is the fundamental difference between the two. Is there a difference or are we just splitting hairs?

Worship always involves a sacrifice. It always has, and it always will. The sacrifice of the mass is never offered to anyone but God. I know someone else posted this, but I wanted to reinforce this point.

Worship is always and only offered to God. I might sit alone in my office and write a love letter, and externally, a person would not be able to tell whether I was actually writing that love letter to my wife. He might surmise (if he felt particularly uncharitable) that I was writing the love letter to an illicit mistress, because externally, those two acts would look exactly the same. Only I (and my wife, when she receives it ) would know beyond a shadow of a doubt who the proper recipient of that love letter is.

Protestants who claim that Catholics worship Mary are even more uncharitable than the man watching me write my wife a love letter, because in this case, the love letter (the mass) is addressed to God and God alone. Anyone watching us write that love letter and thinking it’s written to someone other than God not only starts out uncharitably (by even entertaining the possibility that the Catholic Church writes love letters to someone other than her Husband) but is also especially untrustworthy, since the letter is explicitly addressed to God and to God alone, and we Catholics deny that it goes anywhere else.

Jeremy

 

[corvidae]

dattaswammi,
There is a problem with your theories.
First Jesus was a REAL man with a REAL mother.
Second, Jesus did not come from primordial nature, If He did, He would not be God, but rather, would be created.

We do not believe the Mother of God is equal to God, but we do not believe she simply stands for a concept or a theory.

As a man standing at the lotus feet, you see things very differently than many of the Catholics here do

A lone Raven

 

[mikeledes]

If Saint Paul were talking about the intercession of the saints, would he have said “pray to Mary” or “ask for her intercession.” Would he have understood “prayer” or “praying to” to be the equivalent of worship? How was the word prayer used in Biblical Times and in the age of the early church fathers? Do the early Church fathers (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, etc.) ever talk about praying to Mary or the Saints? Do we have an example of them addressing a prayer to Mary or the saints.

God Bless