Shouldn't we warn against Mary worship?

[JM3]

I too share your VALID concerns. Nowhere does our Church teach the word WORSHIP for our prayers to her or any other saint. Marian devotees should cease using the term worship…in regards to their devotional talk to Mary. It is not now, or ever will be, proper and fitting to suggest we are taught in Catholic doctrines to WORSHIP ANYONE, except the LORD OUR GOD, expressed in the Three Persons, Father/ Son / Holy Spirit.

and again:

CCC 971 “All generations will call me blessed”: "The Church’s devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship."513 The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of ‘Mother of God,’ to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs… This very special devotion … differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration."514 The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an “epitome of the whole Gospel,” express this devotion to the Virgin Mary.515

“very special devotion” and “adoration” are both definitions of worship.

Catholics need to stop thinking like protestants.

 

[JM3]

Thats not much of a defense

Why would I need a defense? It is very uncharitable of you to judge me by your standards or your understanding.

Did I hear someone mention confession?

 

[brb3]

and again:

CCC 971 “All generations will call me blessed”: "The Church’s devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship."513 The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of ‘Mother of God,’ to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs… This very special devotion … differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration."514 The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an “epitome of the whole Gospel,” express this devotion to the Virgin Mary.515

“very special devotion” and “adoration” are both definitions of worship.

Catholics need to stop thinking like protestants.

Devotions, Blessed, Holy Mary mother of God, Fully Graced, our spiritual mother, etc …these are all taught us and Accepted by the Church.

But, still waiting to see an OFFICIAL Church teaching doctrine/dogma that says the word WORSHIP, …to be given to Mary !!

Here’s hoping you don’t … cause if you do, Catholicism has gravely erred, and I don’t wish to learn it has !!

 

[JM3]

Devotions, Blessed, Holy Mary mother of God, Fully Graced, our spiritual mother, etc …these are all taught us and Accepted by the Church.

But, still waiting to see an OFFICIAL Church teaching doctrine/dogma that says the word WORSHIP, …to be given to Mary !!

Here’s hoping you don’t … cause if you do, Catholicism has gravely erred, and I don’t wish to learn it has !!

You have already decided that your definition of worship is infallible and that I am condemned. What would be the point of continuing?

You recently learned about the Assumption. Hopefully, you will learn more of Catholicism as you grow.

I need to get some sleep before I go back to work. So, have a great day.

 

[brb3]

You have already decided that your definition of worship is infallible and that I am condemned. What would be the point of continuing?

You recently learned about the Assumption. Hopefully, you will learn more of Catholicism as you grow.

I need to get some sleep before I go back to work. So, have a great day.

Yes, I recently discovered Psalms132:8 …which well could be key scriptural support for Assumption of Mary. As u may know, I’ve recently been seeking guidance from the HS, fellow Catholics, Church teachings, Traditions, …and even asking Mary to advise me on any of my errors on Her role in Heaven, to her spiritual children. Its been a worthwhile study, and I’m learning a lot. But, I certainly haven’t encountered any evidence that we are to take our focus off Christ, and make her our object of WORSHIP.
I think Luke got it right, after interviewing Mary and the Apostles, and letting the Lord aid him in writing the Gospel Truth on what is due Christ, and what is due to Mary.

 

[TimothyH]

Can’t we just love her?How in the world is that worship?

In the eyes of some, driving a dump truck in the same zip code as a statue of Mary is worship.

-Tim-

 

[brb3]

In the eyes of some, driving a dump truck in the same zip code as a statue of Mary is worship.

-Tim-

That’s hyperbole !!

My mom, a Protestant, high respects Mary’s role in Christianity…but, thinks Catholics way overdo their attentions to Mary, and that Mary was not EverVirgin. Nevertheless, she is agreeable to consider the full Catholic arguments, in light of Scripture.

 

[fred_conty]

St. Paul tells his early christians to respect other’s consciences. That we shouldn’t do something if it violates their conscience and offends them, even tho it may be ok in itself.

It really dosen’t come down to being right or wrong, but respecting other’s consciences. If they have a difficult time then that should be respected.

We really counts?

Just a thought.

 

[JM3]

I certainly haven’t encountered any evidence that we are to take our focus off Christ, and make her our object of WORSHIP.

I don’t believe I said anything like this.

Here’s some documents to read and consider:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_20021016_rosarium-virginis-mariae_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_08091894_iucunda-semper-expectatione_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_p-vi_exh_19740202_marialis-cultus_en.html

 

[losh14]

I wonder if the debate here would take a different tone if the question were:
“What is the range of proper relationships that Christians can have with Mary?
Is there a danger from knowing her too little?
Is there a danger from depending on her too much?”

I think it’s a valid question. I do see how the phrasing “Mary worship” is offensive to some here, and the reactions of

This thread would better fit in a protestant forum.

make sense since this is an accusation that Protestants have leveled at Catholics. Also, the language is not the easiest to use - worship sounds like something you for the Almighty even if it’s technically a correct translation for Latin terms like dulia and hyperdulia.

So while, from an academic standpoint, Tantum ergo is correct:

Do you quite understand that the word ‘worship’ does not historically mean 'that act of adoration offered to God alone? Have you ever studied word etymology?

It’s common usage that we have to consider when we evangelize, within the Church and without. Thus I prefer to use “adoration” for what is offered the Lord, “veneration” for what is offered a saint, and leave “worship” out of it entirely. It does you no good to be correct in an etymological sense if the listener misinterprets your message.

Similarly, the theological truths that the Church professes about Mary, through dogma and other doctrine, are honestly not well-understood. Hence I understand (and appreciate) Benedict’s reluctance to declare the fifth Marian dogma:

Pope Benedict XVI said that the world is not ready for certain titles of Mary because it is not sustincly a bible term, tho it has a basis in the Bible.

Theologians continue to debate its meaning, for one, and I wonder what a dogmatic definition would accomplish in terms of the faith lives of Catholics, and our efforts to evangelize other Christians and non-Christians. Would such a definition make things more clear or more muddy? Would it increase Marian devotion? Would it have an impact in the lives of the faithful?

Even tho it has been explained, it is still for some incomprehendsible and/or incompatible with that of Christ’s. But the compatible explaination is out there. And people are very intelligent. Then why is it so hard to grasp?

A number of reasons. For one, it’s not been well-explained in a common form. Encyclicals are not leisurely reads, and the sources most-often cited for an in-depth explanation aren’t as accessible or known - on Amazon for example, Montfort’s “True Devotion” ranks in the 500,000s for best seller, while Scott Hahn’s “The Lamb’s Supper” is in the 9,000s, so that Amazon sells 55 copies of Hahn for every copy of Montfort.

For another, it’s not a central experience to many Catholics. If you attend Mass, go to Confession once a month, serve as a liturgical minister, assist a charity regularly, pray the rosary daily and pray the daily readings, you may never encounter the doctrine of the Mediatrix of all Graces, despite doing everything that the Church says you must do for salvation, and more. If the Bishops teach Marian doctrine as central to Catholic faith, that gets lost somewhere between the diocese and the pew.

Lastly, when one does encounter the doctrine, questions come up. As you mentioned:

Once the word mediator is mentioned that is the end of the story and there is nothing more to discuss. Because to do that would mean for them the end of mediatorship of Christ, or a shared mediatorship which is unthinkable and heresy.

So what’s Mary the unique mediator of, and why isn’t the Father, the Son or the Spirit doing any of those things? I’ve been asking questions like this for more than a year, and every so often I hit that dead-end fiat:

“Because God wills it.”

Which is frustrating because we have a faith that is strongly logical (the Book of Romans is a masterful set of syllogisms), saints who invented the laws of evidence and the scientific method, and a substantial deposit of faith that no other living religion can match in scope and scholarship. After all this, to get to “God wills Mary to distribute all Graces” is a let-down. Unsatisfying answers are hard to believe.

Another example of why Marian teaching isn’t readily accepted is precisely the question over necessity:

But, because we have direct access to Christ, ( IF WE INDEED RESIDE ‘IN CHRIST’ via the Promised Paraclete ) …we don’t need Mary (or any Saint), to pray to Christ for us. We can talk directly to our Creator…as scripture and our Church teaches us !!!

So that someone (like me) can accept the validity of personal Marian devotion but not the necessity of it. So I see a difference between saying a rosary asking for assistance, and seeing Mary (as Montfort, Ligouri, and others have written) as the necessary path for a believer to reach Jesus.

I hope this helps to show that my own difficulty with Marian doctrine isn’t out of some impious closing of the mind but very real questions in attempting to reconcile what I’ve not yet been able to reconcile.

 

[brb3]

I wonder if the debate here would take a different tone if the question were:
“What is the range of proper relationships that Christians can have with Mary?
Is there a danger from knowing her too little?
Is there a danger from depending on her too much?”

I think it’s a valid question. I do see how the phrasing “Mary worship” is offensive to some here, and the reactions of

make sense since this is an accusation that Protestants have leveled at Catholics. Also, the language is not the easiest to use - worship sounds like something you for the Almighty even if it’s technically a correct translation for Latin terms like dulia and hyperdulia.

So while, from an academic standpoint, Tantum ergo is correct:

It’s common usage that we have to consider when we evangelize, within the Church and without. Thus I prefer to use “adoration” for what is offered the Lord, “veneration” for what is offered a saint, and leave “worship” out of it entirely. It does you no good to be correct in an etymological sense if the listener misinterprets your message.

Similarly, the theological truths that the Church professes about Mary, through dogma and other doctrine, are honestly not well-understood. Hence I understand (and appreciate) Benedict’s reluctance to declare the fifth Marian dogma:

Theologians continue to debate its meaning, for one, and I wonder what a dogmatic definition would accomplish in terms of the faith lives of Catholics, and our efforts to evangelize other Christians and non-Christians. Would such a definition make things more clear or more muddy? Would it increase Marian devotion? Would it have an impact in the lives of the faithful?

A number of reasons. For one, it’s not been well-explained in a common form. Encyclicals are not leisurely reads, and the sources most-often cited for an in-depth explanation aren’t as accessible or known - on Amazon for example, Montfort’s “True Devotion” ranks in the 500,000s for best seller, while Scott Hahn’s “The Lamb’s Supper” is in the 9,000s, so that Amazon sells 55 copies of Hahn for every copy of Montfort.

For another, it’s not a central experience to many Catholics. If you attend Mass, go to Confession once a month, serve as a liturgical minister, assist a charity regularly, pray the rosary daily and pray the daily readings, you may never encounter the doctrine of the Mediatrix of all Graces, despite doing everything that the Church says you must do for salvation, and more. If the Bishops teach Marian doctrine as central to Catholic faith, that gets lost somewhere between the diocese and the pew.

Lastly, when one does encounter the doctrine, questions come up. As you mentioned:

So what’s Mary the unique mediator of, and why isn’t the Father, the Son or the Spirit doing any of those things? I’ve been asking questions like this for more than a year, and every so often I hit that dead-end fiat:

“Because God wills it.”

Which is frustrating because we have a faith that is strongly logical (the Book of Romans is a masterful set of syllogisms), saints who invented the laws of evidence and the scientific method, and a substantial deposit of faith that no other living religion can match in scope and scholarship. After all this, to get to “God wills Mary to distribute all Graces” is a let-down. Unsatisfying answers are hard to believe.

Another example of why Marian teaching isn’t readily accepted is precisely the question over necessity:

So that someone (like me) can accept the validity of personal Marian devotion but not the necessity of it. So I see a difference between saying a rosary asking for assistance, and seeing Mary (as Montfort, Ligouri, and others have written) as the necessary path for a believer to reach Jesus.

I hope this helps to show that my own difficulty with Marian doctrine isn’t out of some impious closing of the mind but very real questions in attempting to reconcile what I’ve not yet been able to reconcile.

Wow …

A masterful summation !! U have spoken from a great well of study, faith & reason !! You have great ‘peacemaker’ qualities as well.

 

[rcwitness]

I too share your VALID concerns. Nowhere does our Church teach the word WORSHIP for our prayers to her or any other saint. Marian devotees should cease using the term worship…in regards to their devotional talk to Mary. It is not now, or ever will be, proper and fitting to suggest we are taught in Catholic doctrines to WORSHIP ANYONE, except the LORD OUR GOD, expressed in the Three Persons, Father/ Son / Holy Spirit.

Thanks brb3,
I think, in todays terms, everyone knows what the meaning of worship has formally become known as. I realize, in former days, it was ALSO used to signify great reverence, or the like. I have seen an official Church document use the term worship in regard to our contemplation of Mary and her role in Christianity. I don’t remember where, specifically. It was old, however. Even though, I think in all the varient definitions in JM3’s post from the webster dictionary it is still very inappropriate to apply to Mary or anyone aside from God.
As I said before also, If someone conveyed their intentions in using a term worship to mean something more in line with honor that we should give to our parents. Which I believe should be given to Mary in a Church frame of heart. This would not be the warning of putting something in the place of God.
See you around,
Michael

 

[rcwitness]

I wonder if the debate here would take a different tone if the question were:
“What is the range of proper relationships that Christians can have with Mary?
Is there a danger from knowing her too little?
Is there a danger from depending on her too much?”

I think it’s a valid question. I do see how the phrasing “Mary worship” is offensive to some here, and the reactions of

make sense since this is an accusation that Protestants have leveled at Catholics. Also, the language is not the easiest to use - worship sounds like something you for the Almighty even if it’s technically a correct translation for Latin terms like dulia and hyperdulia.

For another, it’s not a central experience to many Catholics. If you attend Mass, go to Confession once a month, serve as a liturgical minister, assist a charity regularly, pray I hope this helps to show that my own difficulty with Marian doctrine isn’t out of some impious closing of the mind but very real questions in attempting to reconcile what I’ve not yet been able to reconcile.

Losh14,
I have had time to look over some things and found your posts very considerate. It is the kind of examination of Mary (and all theology) I appreciate. I don’t regret, however, the thread question I used. I agree your words are fine, but my intent was also that we have brotherhood and responsiblility to each others formation in the faith. Each of our actions affect the body. Marian excess does damage to the Church, like any abuse of doctrine or Sacrement. So much deep, difficult Marian teaching has been put forth and I never claimed to deny anything. But when we know that people are vulnerable to take difficult, complex teachings to a different direction (especially the fine line of Mary’s role in prayer, grace, salvation, ect.) and a very dangerous direction (worship - as we undoubtedly know the term to mean in modern time) at that, shouldn’t we warn against this wrong interpretation?
I appreciate your great efforts in examining (like a surgeon) the theology regarding Our Mother Mary.
I love her because she is obedient and quiet. She speaks through the heart and Church. their is God’s wisdom HIDDEN in her! And I don’t wish to take her away from anyone. Nor could I. But if we let our hearts worship her, for her glory, we are not looking at Christ Whom she is consumed in. And she is nowhere outside of Him. Let us look to Christ and we will inherit His Mother.
Test my spirit as I test those around me. It is proper judgment as opposed to being judgemental.
I look forward to seeing your discussions!,
God Bless,
Michael

 

[TimothyH]

Losh14,
I have had time to look over some things and found your posts very considerate. It is the kind of examination of Mary (and all theology) I appreciate. I don’t regret, however, the thread question I used. I agree your words are fine, but my intent was also that we have brotherhood and responsiblility to each others formation in the faith. Each of our actions affect the body. Marian excess does damage to the Church, like any abuse of doctrine or Sacrement. So much deep, difficult Marian teaching has been put forth and I never claimed to deny anything. But when we know that people are vulnerable to take difficult, complex teachings to a different direction (especially the fine line of Mary’s role in prayer, grace, salvation, ect.) and a very dangerous direction (worship - as we undoubtedly know the term to mean in modern time) at that, shouldn’t we warn against this wrong interpretation? I appreciate your great efforts in examining (like a surgeon) the theology regarding Our Mother Mary.
I love her because she is obedient and quiet. She speaks through the heart and Church. their is God’s wisdom HIDDEN in her! And I don’t wish to take her away from anyone. Nor could I. But if we let our hearts worship her, for her glory, we are not looking at Christ Whom she is consumed in. And she is nowhere outside of Him. Let us look to Christ and we will inherit His Mother.
Test my spirit as I test those around me. It is proper judgment as opposed to being judgemental.
I look forward to seeing your discussions!,
God Bless,
Michael

No, Mary was not quiet. That is not what scripture tells us about Mary. Nothing could be further from what scripture actually teaches about Mary.

This idea that Mary was passively obedient, is a modern invention, and one which is inconsistent with both scripture and the reality of what Jewish mothers were and still are like. Anyone who reads the Old Testament can read about the many bold, courageous and vocal women of the Old Testament. Queen Esther. Judith. The mother of the seven sons in 2 Maccabees 7. Scripture is quiet about Mary but Mary herself was Just like the great women of the Old Testament. She was anything but quiet. This is crystal clear to anyone who studies scripture seriously.

Mary seems to almost disregard Jesus wishes at the wedding at Cana. Jesus is indifferent asking "What has this to do with me? and stating clearly that he does not want to start his public ministry saying, “My hour has not yet come.” Mary ignores her son’s wishes. Like any Jewish Mother, Mary knows exactly what is best for her son, ignores him, and tells the stewards, “Do whatever he tells you.”

Mary takes her twelve year old son’s dissapearance as something that was done to her and Joseph personally asking, “Why have you done this to us?”

Some people think Mary simply sat under the cross weeping helplessly. Nothing can be further from the truth, or further from the nature of Jewish mothers. People who think this should go read 2 Macabbees 7 and they will understand what Mary did when she was under the cross. This is the true image of Mary - a woman who exhorts her sons to stay faithful to God in spite of the fact that they were being tortured and butchered. Mary is like her, exhorting her son, calling him to be faithfulness to his mission, knowing full well that his mission was to die.

No. Mary was a faithful Jew who knew the scriptues, and a Jewish mother who constantly encouraged her Jewish son to stay faithful, to endure, to complete his mission, knowing that he would surely die but that he would also rise from the dead. The passively quiet peasant girl, silently following her son around and weeping under the cross is not what the Bible actually says. Anyone who has ever spent time with a Jewish mother knows that passive obedience and staying quiet are not part of their nature. These are proud Jewish women, vocal and strong Jewish women, and Mary was no different.

If you love Mary because she is quiet, then you love a Mary which does not exist.

-Tim-

 

[JCnMe]

…and I point out to those who believe Marian attention is hurting the Church…in whose eyes?.. I’m sorry if protestant friends and family or those on discussion boards make you dig deep to define yourself and your faith… but changing those whose devotion to the Blessed Mother makes you uncomfortable is not the answer-nor even your business… coming to terms with your own relationship with Mary and being comfortable in it is something you have to define in yourself first- before you can explain it to others.lip service about Mary means nothing if there is a hollow space instead of love behind it… and you really don’t need to explain it if they simply can’t or don’t want to understand it or at the very least repect your views as your own - offer to take them to discuss it with your Priest if they are serious about learning… and then see how quickly some will change the subject-but don’t ever let them think you are going to pacify them by denying her importance… the only ones that really care or matter what you feel and believe are- Mary, her Son and the Father… and I assure you they all know no one has elevated the Blessed Mother over them-even if you don’t… be at peace with this- it’s all in good hands

 

[brb3]

No, Mary was not quiet. That is not what scripture tells us about Mary. Nothing could be further from what scripture actually teaches about Mary.

This idea that Mary was passively obedient, is a modern invention, and one which is inconsistent with both scripture and the reality of what Jewish mothers were and still are like. Anyone who reads the Old Testament can read about the many bold, courageous and vocal women of the Old Testament. Queen Esther. Judith. The mother of the seven sons in 2 Maccabees 7. Scripture is quiet about Mary but Mary herself was Just like the great women of the Old Testament. She was anything but quiet. This is crystal clear to anyone who studies scripture seriously.

Mary seems to almost disregard Jesus wishes at the wedding at Cana. Jesus is indifferent asking "What has this to do with me? and stating clearly that he does not want to start his public ministry saying, “My hour has not yet come.” Mary ignores her son’s wishes. Like any Jewish Mother, Mary knows exactly what is best for her son, ignores him, and tells the stewards, “Do whatever he tells you.”

Mary takes her twelve year old son’s dissapearance as something that was done to her and Joseph personally asking, “Why have you done this to us?”

Some people think Mary simply sat under the cross weeping helplessly. Nothing can be further from the truth, or further from the nature of Jewish mothers. People who think this should go read 2 Macabbees 7 and they will understand what Mary did when she was under the cross. This is the true image of Mary - a woman who exhorts her sons to stay faithful to God in spite of the fact that they were being tortured and butchered. Mary is like her, exhorting her son, calling him to be faithfulness to his mission, knowing full well that his mission was to die.

No. Mary was a faithful Jew who knew the scriptues, and a Jewish mother who constantly encouraged her Jewish son to stay faithful, to endure, to complete his mission, knowing that he would surely die but that he would also rise from the dead. The passively quiet peasant girl, silently following her son around and weeping under the cross is not what the Bible actually says. Anyone who has ever spent time with a Jewish mother knows that passive obedience and staying quiet are not part of their nature. These are proud Jewish women, vocal and strong Jewish women, and Mary was no different.

If you love Mary because she is quiet, then you love a Mary which does not exist.

-Tim-

Tim …

I think you are making assumptions you can’t be sure of. Saying Mary was just like every Jewish mother…???

Oh Brother, lets hope not…I’ve known a few Jewish ladys … and they couldn’t control their tongues !

 

[rcwitness]

No, Mary was not quiet. That is not what scripture tells us about Mary. Nothing could be further from what scripture actually teaches about Mary.

This idea that Mary was passively obedient, is a modern invention, and one which is inconsistent with both scripture and the reality of what Jewish mothers were and still are like… She was anything but quiet. This is crystal clear to anyone who studies scripture seriously.

Some people think Mary simply sat under the cross weeping helplessly. This is the true image of Mary - a woman who exhorts her sons to stay faithful to God in spite of the fact that they were being tortured and butchered. Mary is like her, exhorting her son, calling him to be faithfulness to his mission, knowing full well that his mission was to die.

No. Mary was a faithful Jew who knew the scriptues, and a Jewish mother who constantly encouraged her Jewish son to stay faithful, to endure, to complete his mission, knowing that he would surely die but that he would also rise from the dead. The passively quiet peasant girl, silently following her son around and weeping under the cross is not what the Bible actually says. Anyone who has ever spent time with a Jewish mother knows that passive obedience and staying quiet are not part of their nature. These are proud Jewish women, vocal and strong Jewish women, and Mary was no different.

If you love Mary because she is quiet, then you love a Mary which does not exist.

-Tim-

Tim,
Do you find offense at this because you think we should worship her? Do you think she taught in the Churches? Do you think she debated in the temples? Does Paul not say this is shamefull for a woman?

1st Corinthians 14:33-35,
“As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shamefull for a woman to speak in church.”

I think it is more likely that modern women are speaking more, but saying less. Don’t get me wrong. Women have a strong presence in the Church. My parish struggles with men standing up to take on responsabilities. I don’t mean that Mary never spoke. But that she didn’t need to say much. Quiet does not mean mute. She spoke with her obedience and heart. She was with Him at the cross, yes. And she felt pain.
I sense contempt in your post. Why? What for? Because I don’t want people to worship Mary? I would not worship Mary if the Pope and all the Bishops told me it was neccessary for my salvation. Because this is in direct contrast to the first commandment. You shall not bow down to them or serve them. No one can contradict this. Do you wish to?
But I don’t think this will happen. I believe in the preservation of the teaching.

 

[De_Montfort]

Tim,
Do you find offense at this because you think we should worship her? Do you think she taught in the Churches? Do you think she debated in the temples? Does Paul not say this is shamefull for a woman?

I see nothing in Tim’s post that makes such claims that you are trying to imply. Such behavior will get us nowhere either.

Mary is Queen of Heaven and earth, Her transformation into Christ far surpassed Paul as much as Heaven surpasses the earth, St. Louis de Montfort said.

Christ submitted to Mary for 30 years and gave 10 times as much time to Her as he did to His apostles. When we submit to Mary we imitate Christ. It is a continutation of His devotion to Her.

The whole history of the Church gives witness of how near it lies to His Sacred Heart with the honor of His Mother. The lives of the Saints speak loudley in Her Honor and priviliages.

Whatever Christ has by nature, Mary has by grace. That includes power and glory in heaven and on earth.

Mary is not God and of herself she is nothing. But things being as they are God has exalted Her such.

I give everything to Mary. Why? Because I am a sinner, my love for Christ is imperfect, Mary is a perfect Creature, She is one with God more than any creature or angel ever will or ever can be. She lived the very life of Her Son, She knows the secrets of Christ and has the keys to the heart of God. I want to love Jesus as She does, to have Her compassion that She had when Her Son was crucified. She loved Him perfectly and gave Him more glory than can be predictated of any other creature. I want that for Jesus, and everything I give to Mary, is given to Him immediately.

I follow St. Louis de Montfort and I do not worship Mary. I submit to Her as my Queen Mother, and Mistress, and in doing so I imitate Christ.

 

[mcrts]

Tim …

I think you are making assumptions you can’t be sure of. Saying Mary was just like every Jewish mother…???

Oh Brother, lets hope not…I’ve known a few Jewish ladys … and they couldn’t control their tongues !

Well i have a feeling she’s no wimp either. Her life was too full of turmoils for that. At fourteen she had to face possible accusation of adultery due to her sudden pregnancy. Remember while Joseph understood what had happened you couldn’t stop tongues wagging. When she found out Elizabeth was with child she immediately travelled to visit her. That was no mean feat. And they had to go to Bethlehem and Egypt when she was both with child and directly after giving birth. And late in life she had to hold the fort while Jesus was preaching- she was basically alone as Joseph had died.

 

[rcwitness]

I see nothing in Tim’s post that makes such claims that you are trying to imply. Such behavior will get us nowhere either.

I asked him if he was offended. He can answer. His tone was defensive. He can correct me if I’m wrong. And I could be wrong. He made pretty large assumptions that true bible teaching is that Mary was anything but quiet. Then says scripture is quiet about her. So this doesn’t prove anything. He finally told me if I love Mary because she is quiet (which is a characteristic I think noble of her), then I do not know the real Mary. I think it is by far a more logical and realistic interpretation that she was quiet in the life of the Church. Meaning her strength is not in sermons and speeches or debates and letters. I believe Tim’s response was a bit more irrational. But I was not offended. Just asking HIM.

Mary is Queen of Heaven and earth, Her transformation into Christ far surpassed Paul as much as Heaven surpasses the earth, St. Louis de Montfort said.

I’m not sure I know what is meant by “transformation”

Christ submitted to Mary for 30 years and gave 10 times as much time to Her as he did to His apostles. When we submit to Mary we imitate Christ. It is a continutation of His devotion to Her.

I believe Jesus gave to God what was God’s and Mary what was Mary’s. He gave His birth, childhood, life and those who keep His commandments to His mother. Yes this is great.

The whole history of the Church gives witness of how near it lies to His Sacred Heart with the honor of His Mother. The lives of the Saints speak loudley in Her Honor and priviliages.

I agree.

Whatever Christ has by nature, Mary has by grace. That includes power and glory in heaven and on earth.

Yes, however I do not thank her for the power and glory of God. I do not praise her for His power and glory. I do thank her for her love of Jesus extended to us.

Mary is not God and of herself she is nothing. But things being as they are God has exalted Her such.

I agree. Exalted her for God’s glory. Not for us to praise and worship her.

I give everything to Mary. Why? Because I am a sinner, my love for Christ is imperfect, Mary is a perfect Creature, She is one with God more than any creature or angel ever will or ever can be. She lived the very life of Her Son, She knows the secrets of Christ and has the keys to the heart of God. I want to love Jesus as She does, to have Her compassion that She had when Her Son was crucified. She loved Him perfectly and gave Him more glory than can be predictated of any other creature. I want that for Jesus, and everything I give to Mary, is given to Him immediately.

I can appretiate this. It is imtimate relation to Mary in the purpose of loving the Lord and His Most dear creation. It is ispiration from her to Love the Father. Giving her “everything” is something I personally don’t do. I think there can be a right meaning in how you do that. But for some it can go the wrong way. But I keep saying, I don’t personally judge that in people.

I follow St. Louis de Montfort and I do not worship Mary. I submit to Her as my Queen Mother, and Mistress, and in doing so I imitate Christ.

I follow, or try to the best I can, the Lord and His commandments which I receive through the Spirit and Church.

I don’t think your faith is wrong.
I know its not me that matters. But I keep getting misunderstood.
thanks bro,
Michael

Sorry, I don’t know how to use the multiple quote feature. My responses are now in your quote. My mistake