Mary for our salvation?

[savrx]

DavidB:

Sara,
You seem to be completely overlooking that the prayer specifically says someone goes through Mary because they “fear” Jesus and only she can “appease” Him. Isn’t that “calling upon Mary because we angered the Lord”? It certainly seems obvious to anyone else I’ve asked about it on my end. When that prayer asks Mary to “obtain” for me my “pardon for sins” from Jesus, how can you then say it doesn’t say to Mary to “please pray to Jesus for me”?

I’ll say it again. You can pore over each work in this particular prayer, dissecting it according to your flawed Protestant theology all you like, but the fact remains that knowledgeable Catholics are simply not living out what you are falsely attributing to them.

Now if you think we’re just lying to you and its all a conspiracy to hide the fact that we really do give adoration to Mary, then that is another issue and you should just come out and say that.

On the other hand, you could do the charitable thing and give us the benefit of the doubt when we say that it is you who does not understand a very fundamental component to this, i.e. the doctrine of the Communion of Saints.

What you’re doing is akin to someone picking a fight with a bunch of physicists over each word in a common textbook description of quantum mechanics when you don’t even understand the laws of classical mechanics or the basic properties of atomic particles!

It doesn’t appear to me that I’m the one not discerning.

Of course it doesn’t, being Protestant you’re your own Pope, so you just COULDN"T possibly be misunderstanding this.

What does the word “appease” mean to you, especially in context that it’s based on “fear”? What does that prayer say about Jesus having to be “appeased”?

First off, the “fear of the Lord” is a good thing. Second, the person of Jesus Christ did offer himself to appease God’s wrath on our behalf. Mary, whose will was perfectly harmonious with Christ’s, offered her prayers. Both atoned for our sins, although Christ’s satisfaction was wholly sufficient in and of itself.

So in the context of Mary being the perfect CREATED example for the Church, it is wholly proper to put one’s salvation under her protection, as the entire existence of the Mother of God is to point to her Son.

1 Kings 2:16-20: "“Pray ask king Solomon- he will not refuse you- to give me Abishag the Shunammite as my wife.” Bathsheba said, “Very well, I will speak for you to the king.” So Bathsheba went to king Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adonijah. And the king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne, and had a seat brought for the king’s mother, and she sat on his right. Then she said, “I have one small request to make of you; do not refuse me.” and the king said to her, “Make your request, my mother, for I will not refuse you.”"

Now I’m sure you have absolutely no knowledge of the precedence of the “type” of the queen mother in the OT. But again is it really OUR fault that your spiritual fathers before you chose to apostacize from the legitimate teaching authority? Not really.

Everyone keeps accusing me of being too daft to comprehend or even giving “false testimony”.

But you are sir. When you say “you believe A” and we say “no, we don’t” and you continue to propogate this lie which you created based on a faulty interpretation of a single prayer which you had probably never read in your life before, then yes you are giving false testimony to our Faith.

By the way, I’m not exactly sure what about that post you found “absolutely brilliant”. It didn’t bother to provide any answers or refutations.

Nor did it claim to. Why would I waste my time arguing with a faulty premise that is really only a fabrication of your own ignorance of Catholic doctrine?

It simply said (over and over again) that it disagreed with me. There’s nothing clever in telling someone “you don’t understand”, yet fail to provide a proper explanation.

No, but its VERY CLEVER of you to fight a strawman.

In fact, so far, the only excuse I’m seen of this text is that it’s “flowery” language, a hyperbole, and that it doesn’t mean what it says. Sorry, but that’s not an explanation, that’s a cop out.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. The fact remains that 1) people here have given you more than enough “explanations”, 2) you simply don’t agree with or particularly like the responses, so 3) you feel the need to continue to interject your own meaning into it and then paint US as the ones who actually believe what you’ve created.

Sorry pal, no dice.

 

[Sherlock]

DavidB:

In fact, so far, the only excuse I’m seen of this text is that it’s “flowery” language, a hyperbole, and that it doesn’t mean what it says. Sorry, but that’s not an explanation, that’s a cop out.

David

But it’s not a cop-out. Hyperbole is a style of expression, not a scientific explanation, of an idea. “Wild horses could not drag me from you” is not meant to be a precise illustration of a man’s strength relative to charging wild horses. The female recipient of such words knows, given the context, that her next questions should not be, “How many horses are we talking about? How much, on average, do these horses weigh? How are you going to be dragged—with a rope?” No, she’s going to understand (without lengthy argumentation) that this is an expression of her beloved’s attachment to her. Likewise with “I’ll swim the deepest ocean…”.

The prayer is not meant to be taken as a theological treatise. The Church has not dogmatically proclaimed that this prayer represents, in a theologically precise way, Marian doctrine. People here have attempted to explain this to you, but you seem unwilling to accept the explanations. Why are you so hard-hearted and choosing to find fault? That doesn’t seem very Christian to me.

 

[savrx]

Sherlock:

The prayer is not meant to be taken as a theological treatise. The Church has not dogmatically proclaimed that this prayer represents, in a theologically precise way, Marian doctrine. People here have attempted to explain this to you, but you seem unwilling to accept the explanations. Why are you so hard-hearted and choosing to find fault? That doesn’t seem very Christian to me.

Because it’s easier to damn someone from ignorance than it is to take the time to delve into their claims with an open heart and mind.

 

[chrisb]

DavidB:

Sara,

I explained it in post # 90. To me, this isn’t about devotion to Mary. To me, this prayer is saying Jesus is too angry to be approached, so please do it for me Mary, “appease” Jesus and then obtain for me forgiveness for my sins. This is a wrong idea of Jesus and deliberately pushes Jesus into the distance, unapproachable, and elevates Mary as the approachable one who can calm her angry Son down on our behalf. That, in my book and in scripture, is replacing Jesus with Mary.

David

Peace be with you David,

It’s interesting following your line of criticism here. It’s not too different from criticism I tend to get from Muslims about our adoration of Jesus Christ…

That our worship of Jesus Christ deliberately pushes God (the Father) into the distance, unapproachable, and elevates Jesus as the approachable one who can calm His angry Father on our behalf.

Interesting isn’t it? Why can’t man approach God (the Father) without a mediator? Is God (the Father) so unapproachable, so angry? I think we see the seeds of this in Judaism were a special priest class mediated for the common sinner on their behalf. The early Church didn’t have the New Testament as “official” Scripture and so looked into “official” Scripture (i.e. Old Testament) for understandings of Jesus, Mary and the others that had roles in our salvation. The Early Church naturally connected Jesus with David and thus Mary with the Queen Mother. It wasn’t seen as one lone individual deciding of fate of men but more as a divine court were Jesus’ Judgments would be influenced by the rest of the divine court members especially His Mother, who sits at His side. This is not something that we as modern men can relate too easily but it was very much apart of the Early Church. As I tell my Muslim Friends, either Christianity was wrong from the beginning or it was right from the beginning. I don’t tend to believe that we got it wrong for 1500 years until finally the Reformation stumbled on to it. Of course, that is merely my opinion but it is one which clings to the Faith of Jesus Christ from the first days of His Church till now.

Peace, Love and Blessings.

 

[sherilo]

OK y’all, I think its time to look around. There is a growing number of posts concerning this issue. It is being debated almost more than any other previously divisive issue. In spite of where an individual stands, or what one was raised to believe, or what one takes literally or explains away as flowery speech of the day, these Marian threads are sending up a lot of smoke.

In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee do I entrust my soul . . . For. If thou protect me, dear Mother, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my Judge Himself, because by one prayer from thee, he will be appeased. But one thing I fear; that, in the hour of temptation, I may neglect to call on thee, and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, then, the pardon of my sins . . .”

If we, as Catholics or soon to be Catholics are honest with ourselves, we must admit that anyone reading this prayer would interpret it as meaning that Mary is being given way more power or credit than she should have. It puts me off, but I don’t have the benefit of years of Catholic understanding. This prayer is not a good way to evangelize to Protestants. Also, we must admit that there are many Catholics who do not have a full and accurate understanding of Mary’s place, and tend to elevate her more than should happen. That being said, Protestants and other doubtful should give the informed Catholic the benefit of the doubt when they say that they themselves do not worship Mary in the sense of worship as is due Jesus, or give any credit to her that only Jesus is due. You cannot tell them how they feel. And Catholics who can’t completely embrace Mariolgy should be thankful that praying to her is not a requirement. As we can all see, there was a reason for that. It remains to be seen if this issue will continue to smolder or erupt into a full blown blaze. God sees this strife regarding Mary and the increasing divisiveness. As He continues to gather his family, I believe He will settle this issue.

Peace to all,
Sherilo

 

[DavidB]

chrisb:

Peace be with you David,

It’s interesting following your line of criticism here. It’s not too different from criticism I tend to get from Muslims about our adoration of Jesus Christ…

That our worship of Jesus Christ deliberately pushes God (the Father) into the distance, unapproachable, and elevates Jesus as the approachable one who can calm His angry Father on our behalf.

Interesting isn’t it? Why can’t man approach God (the Father) without a mediator? Is God (the Father) so unapproachable, so angry? I think we see the seeds of this in Judaism were a special priest class mediated for the common sinner on their behalf. The early Church didn’t have the New Testament as “official” Scripture and so looked into “official” Scripture (i.e. Old Testament) for understandings of Jesus, Mary and the others that had roles in our salvation. The Early Church naturally connected Jesus with David and thus Mary with the Queen Mother. It wasn’t seen as one lone individual deciding of fate of men but more as a divine court were Jesus’ Judgments would be influenced by the rest of the divine court members especially His Mother, who sits at His side. This is not something that we as modern men can relate too easily but it was very much apart of the Early Church. As I tell my Muslim Friends, either Christianity was wrong from the beginning or it was right from the beginning. I don’t tend to believe that we got it wrong for 1500 years until finally the Reformation stumbled on to it. Of course, that is merely my opinion but it is one which clings to the Faith of Jesus Christ from the first days of His Church till now.

Peace, Love and Blessings.

Hi Chris,

I didn’t realize Muslims thought that way - interesting - but in reality, that is what Jesus did, so they are right. What they miss is the fact that;s necessary. Since all fall short of God’s glory and His holy nature requires justice, we do indeed need Jesus’ sacrifice (Mercy) to atone for our sins and satisfy His Justice and allow us to approach His Father in Heaven.

David

 

[DavidB]

savrx:

Because it’s easier to damn someone from ignorance than it is to take the time to delve into their claims with an open heart and mind.

As someone who spent 20 years as a Pentecostal, I’ve come to accept the idea of asking saints and Mary for intercessory prayer as an acceptable thing. I don’t participate myself, preferring to pray to Jesus exclusively, but neither do I condemn or criticize those who do. That was quite a stretch for me to make and it took years to get there. I consider my heart to be very open, yet, when things are across the line, like this prayer, I’m not bashful about saying so even if it doesn’t make me look very open-minded or intelligent. Sometimes Paul just has to tell Peter to his face he’s wrong, even if it risks relationships. The question is always, will Peter realize Paul may be right and stop and listen with a humble heart.

David

 

[Sherlock]

DavidB:

As someone who spent 20 years as a Pentecostal, I’ve come to accept the idea of asking saints and Mary for intercessory prayer as an acceptable thing. I don’t participate myself, preferring to pray to Jesus exclusively, but neither do I condemn or criticize those who do. That was quite a stretch for me to make and it took years to get there. I consider my heart to be very open, yet, when things are across the line, like this prayer, I’m not bashful about saying so even if it doesn’t make me look very open-minded or intelligent. Sometimes Paul just has to tell Peter to his face he’s wrong, even if it risks relationships. The question is always, will Peter realize Paul may be right and stop and listen with a humble heart.

David

You haven’t shown that Peter is wrong, and indeed have rejected Peter’s explanations and refuse to give him the benefit of the doubt. So, maybe you need to look at yourself in the mirror before telling Peter he needs a humble heart.

 

[DavidB]

Sherlock:

You haven’t shown that Peter is wrong, and indeed have rejected Peter’s explanations and refuse to give him the benefit of the doubt. So, maybe you need to look at yourself in the mirror before telling Peter he needs a humble heart.

Oh I’ve shown it quite clearly, but you’ve hardened your heart against it. I wouldn’t expect anything less, but at least the attempt has been made. Carry on. I’ve leave the subject. There’s little more that can be added to this discussion.

David

 

[Fiat]

DavidB:

As someone who spent 20 years as a Pentecostal, I’ve come to accept the idea of asking saints and Mary for intercessory prayer as an acceptable thing. I don’t participate myself, preferring to pray to Jesus exclusively, but neither do I condemn or criticize those who do. That was quite a stretch for me to make and it took years to get there. I consider my heart to be very open, yet, when things are across the line, like this prayer, I’m not bashful about saying so even if it doesn’t make me look very open-minded or intelligent. Sometimes Paul just has to tell Peter to his face he’s wrong, even if it risks relationships. The question is always, will Peter realize Paul may be right and stop and listen with a humble heart.

David

What is it that you think you are “right” about, exactly? I haven’t read a post on this thread from a Catholic who agrees with your interpretation that the prayer requires one to subordinate Christ to the Blessed Mother.

I agree that there is little more that you can add to this discussion. If you are content not to pray this prayer, then that’s your business. Go peacefully.

Fiat

 

[Sherlock]

sherilo:

If we, as Catholics or soon to be Catholics are honest with ourselves, we must admit that anyone reading this prayer would interpret it as meaning that Mary is being given way more power or credit than she should have. It puts me off, but I don’t have the benefit of years of Catholic understanding. This prayer is not a good way to evangelize to Protestants. Also, we must admit that there are many Catholics who do not have a full and accurate understanding of Mary’s place, and tend to elevate her more than should happen. .

Peace to all
Sherilo

[/indent]

Sherilo,

Bless you for your kind heart. However, I have to say: I don’t think that anyone has suggested that flowery Marian prayers are a good way to evangelize to Protestants. I certainly don’t think they are, and I don’t know anyone who does. Do you have someone in mind, then? Otherwise, this is a straw-man argument.

I can’t admit, as you think I must, that there are “many Catholics who do not have a full and accurate understanding of Mary’s place, and tend to elevate her more than should happen.” I’ll certainly admit that there’s probably some, but personally I haven’t met any. I wonder how you come up with the term “many”? What is it based on?

 

[Gene_C]

To sara888, Sherlock and CARose,

I wasn’t intimating that it was anyone of this Forum. I meant it in a general sense.

Let me paste paragraph 67 from the document of the Second Vatican Council titled Lumen Gentium:

“This most Holy Synod deliberately teaches this Catholic doctrine and at the same time admonishes all the sons of the Church that the cult, especially the liturgical cult, of the Blessed Virgin, be generously fostered, and the practices and exercises of piety, recommended by the magisterium of the Church toward her in the course of centuries be made of great moment, and those decrees, which have been given in the early days regarding the cult of images of Christ, the Blessed Virgin and the saints, be religiously observed. But it exhorts theologians and preachers of the divine word to abstain zealously both from all gross exaggerations as well as from petty narrow-mindedness in considering the singular dignity of the Mother of God. **Following the study of Sacred Scripture, the Holy Fathers, the doctors and liturgy of the Church, and under the guidance of the Church’s magisterium, let them rightly illustrate the duties and privileges of the Blessed Virgin which always look to Christ, the source of all truth, sanctity and piety. Let them assiduously keep away from whatever, either by word or deed, could lead separated brethren or any other into error regarding the true doctrine of the Church. **Let the faithful remember moreover that true devotion consists neither in sterile or transitory affection, nor in a certain vain credulity, but proceeds from true faith, by which we are led to know the excellence of the Mother of God, and we are moved to a filial love toward our mother and to the imitation of her virtues.”

May I suggest that the Pope and the bishops would not have stated this if they didn’t think it was possible.

What do you think?

Gene

 

[sherilo]

Sherlock:

Sherilo,

Bless you for your kind heart. However, I have to say: I don’t think that anyone has suggested that flowery Marian prayers are a good way to evangelize to Protestants. I certainly don’t think they are, and I don’t know anyone who does. Do you have someone in mind, then? Otherwise, this is a straw-man argument.

I can’t admit, as you think I must, that there are “many Catholics who do not have a full and accurate understanding of Mary’s place, and tend to elevate her more than should happen.” I’ll certainly admit that there’s probably some, but personally I haven’t met any. I wonder how you come up with the term “many”? What is it based on?

Sorry if I implied that I thought someone suggested using flowery Marian prayers to evangelize Protestants. I was not trying to argue, only making the statement that if this prayer is an inside thing, that it is probably best to keep it that way.
Regarding the “many” who do not have a full and accurate understanding of Mary’s place, I, of course, do not have the numbers for you. Sorry, again. It is clear that I cannot compete in this venue. However, a simple search of Mariology on these forums will produce more statements like mine. I could quote some, but I will not bring them into this. If that were not an issue, I wonder if there would be so much controversy about Mary.

Peace to all,
Sherilo

 

[Sherlock]

Gene C.:

To sara888, Sherlock and CARose,

I wasn’t intimating that it was anyone of this Forum. I meant it in a general sense.

Let me paste paragraph 67 from the document of the Second Vatican Council titled Lumen Gentium:

“This most Holy Synod deliberately teaches this Catholic doctrine and at the same time admonishes all the sons of the Church that the cult, especially the liturgical cult, of the Blessed Virgin, be generously fostered, and the practices and exercises of piety, recommended by the magisterium of the Church toward her in the course of centuries be made of great moment, and those decrees, which have been given in the early days regarding the cult of images of Christ, the Blessed Virgin and the saints, be religiously observed. But it exhorts theologians and preachers of the divine word to abstain zealously both from all gross exaggerations as well as from petty narrow-mindedness in considering the singular dignity of the Mother of God. **Following the study of Sacred Scripture, the Holy Fathers, the doctors and liturgy of the Church, and under the guidance of the Church’s magisterium, let them rightly illustrate the duties and privileges of the Blessed Virgin which always look to Christ, the source of all truth, sanctity and piety. Let them assiduously keep away from whatever, either by word or deed, could lead separated brethren or any other into error regarding the true doctrine of the Church. **Let the faithful remember moreover that true devotion consists neither in sterile or transitory affection, nor in a certain vain credulity, but proceeds from true faith, by which we are led to know the excellence of the Mother of God, and we are moved to a filial love toward our mother and to the imitation of her virtues.”

May I suggest that the Pope and the bishops would not have stated this if they didn’t think it was possible.

What do you think?

Gene

Of course I think it’s possible. I have said as much elsewhere. Again, any kind of heresy and any kind of distortion whether of narrowness or exaggeration is theoretically possible. Nor do I think that throwing flowery prayers in front of Protestants is a good idea, and have said that as well. But I have to doubt how common it is: I personally have never come across a Catholic who elevated the importance of Mary to the point where she became more important than Christ. Do such people exist? Probably, but I’ve not heard of any real cases—have you? I’m sure that if they express this view they would be set straight by orthodox Catholics. Also, the letter above refers to “theologians and preachers”—what theologians today are elevating Mary to supra-Jesus status? Also, what to do about Protestants seeking out such flowery prayers to justify their misconception that Catholics worship Mary? Now, I have certainly come across that a number of times. So, what shall we do: ban all St. Louis de Montfort books and all flowery Marian prayers because some Protestants seek them out to use them against us? It seems to me that if some honest Protestant comes by such hyperbolic prayers, he can always ask Catholics for an explanation. Which has been done here, though to no avail. So what shall we do? Strip our faith of its poetic expressions, and make sure that everything is theologically dry? I don’t think that Mary as some kind of deity is anywhere near as prevalent as Protestants like to think, or at least I’d like some concrete proof that it is.

 

[Dan-Man916]

savrx,

RE:#120.

Good response.

The point is how Catholics view this prayer, since it is a Catholic prayer.
If someone gets all bent out of shape because of the language of the prayer, and Catholics tell them that we don’t see it the way they explain it, then, they should at least accept that explanation.

 

[savrx]

Dan-Man916:

savrx,
The point is how Catholics view this prayer, since it is a Catholic prayer.

Exactly.

Dan-Man916:

If someone gets all bent out of shape because of the language of the prayer, and Catholics tell them that we don’t see it the way they explain it, then, they should at least accept that explanation.

Yeah, I really don’t see the point of continuing to insist that the prayer really means something entirely different than what knowledgeable self-proclaimed Catholics are saying it means. I mean, who would really know? The Protestant with an axe to grind or actual believers of that theology? Hmmmmm.

DavidB could make so many other assertions that might actually carry some weight and involve legitimate discussion, such as:

1. Mary’s role in salvation history is misunderstood by some and CAN lead to actual adoration of her.
2. If not understood properly, such prayers can be mistaken by Protestants to indicate Mary adoration.
   etc etc.

See, those arguments might actually be worth discussing. What I find pointless is reiterating over and over again to him the FACT that Catholic doctrine has never, does not, and never will understand Mary in the light he wants it to. He’s really fighting against a fabrication of his own making.

 

[CARose]

Well said Savrx,

On that note, I suspect I will not be posting to this thread any longer. I prefer to spend my time where those involved in the discussion at least make an attempt to look like they’re hearing what’s being said.

When one repeatedly tries to tell us that we believe things about Mary that we absolutely do not, well, who needs the aggravation? I know I don’t.

CARose

 

[sara888]

**As I said David , Savrx is pure Genius, he answered everyone of your questions and statements you proposed and presented, I believe at this point it’s a matter of interpretation.

You are disregarding how a True Catholic interprets the prayer in question

You are distorting and twisting its meaning and then trying to convince us of how we interpret it.

Its a matter of how YOU are interpreting the prayer or definition rather than how Catholics interpret its meaning. We all have voiced our views and explained in full detail the prayer, and why we do not place the Blessed Mother of God before Jesus.

You seem to be a novice when it comes to Catholic Theology.To reiterate, we know and understand what we believe, no one can change that. We are the first church, all other denominational Sects Christianity are just off-springs of the Catholic Church, that is History, not popular Opinion.

Be more discerning please.

Sara**

 

[Shlemele]

I know this is late in the thread and I am not going to sway anyone’s opinions either way I would like to offer up my experiences as a point of discussion on this topic.

As I have posted before I grew up mainly in a Latin Catholic (Mexican, Central/South American) town. To Latin Catholics Mary plays a large role in their understanding of the church. I however grew up M.B. so my faith traditions differed greatly from this. I remember many times being confused as to why I would see a huge mural of Mary on a van or truck and never a mural of Jesus. When I grade school I was told by Catholic students that I didn’t believe in God because I didn’t worship Mary. Granted at the time I was very young so none uf us were really any kind of theologian, the point is that the kids I grew up with had been taught this by someone. Later I met my best friend and he being Catholic taught me many things about the Catholic church and vice versa. He being of a europian tradition though was less into Mary adoration. What stuck with me was that fact that so many people really thought that they had to pray to Mary for salvation, Jesus was more of a footnote.

The point I want to bring up is how has the church failed to teach the truth that salvation is not attained through Mary but through her son. It is true that we couldn’t have had Jesus without Mary but the fact remains that Jesus was the fulfillment of scriptures promises not Mary.

Let’s use an analogy. You have a choice to appeal to the President over an issue with a law, do you go to G.W. or his mother. Well you might do some research and find that even though G.W. would hear your appeal his mother might be more receptive so you appeal your case to her. Can she make the decision to ratify the law or will she have to further articulate this to G.W.? In the end although Bushes mother has a lot of power it is G.W. who makes the call (not trying to be political here but just making a point).

To imply that Mary has solely in her the power to forgive implies that she is the one that paid the debt of sin and from what I know of scripture that is an out and out lie. What I don’t understand is why the Catholic Church allows this to go on. Adoration and Worship are two totally different animals (my wife in our wedding asked Mary to intercede on her behalf to make her a good wife, she did not ask for Mary to grant this on her own). Again I’m not trying to make this any more difficult just wanted to throw my opinion out there.

[Edit] I just thought after I hit the reply button but how do you think this prayer might be understood by a new convert and might it lead a young Christian to confusion about the nature of your beliefs? I wonder if this might fit under the category of “causing another to fall”. Again not saying it does but from my experience the seeds are most certainly there.

 

[Sherlock]

Shlemele,

Thanks for your thoughtful post. I’m sorry that you and obviously other kids were not given correct catechesis, but since what you and they were taught doesn’t agree with Church doctrine, what can I say? I wish everyone could grow up with perfect, accurate catechesis (speaking as one who grew up with lousy catechesis). But in response to your statement, “The point I want to bring up is how has the church failed to teach the truth that salvation is not attained through Mary but through her son”, I would say that it must have been a regional problem where you happened to be. I was never taught that heresy. Despite my lousy catechesis, I never thought that Mary was more important than Jesus—the very idea would have been laughable to me as a kid. So, all I can say is that it sure would be nice if Church teaching was, in fact, taught accurately. The fact that it sometimes isn’t, by the those who teach religious ed, does not mean that the heresy is what the Church teaches.