Thoughts on Marian Apparitions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Conor7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
kylemccloughan said:
Not to be snarky, but so what? That doesn’t befront me.
Click to expand...
To a RC, dulia/hyperdulia are the respect and awe appropiate for selected created beings. Saints merit dulia, only one such creation meriting* hyperdulia*, the BVM. Neither is worshipped.

Latria is the only appropriate term for worship, in this sense, and is restricted to the Uncreaet - God.

There may be RCs who worship Mary: I’ve never met one. But it is not what the RCC teaches.

GKC
 
I don’t think Catholics worship Mary in the same way they do God. They know the difference, and they do not have the same attitude toward the two.

I know a few people who become hung up on chasing apparitions and personal revelations, just like people who go to psychics. I find myself wishing their priests would put a lid on it because I see them doing something dangerous, but I think they have clearly got the wrong end of the stick.

But some of the things in the private revelations seem to be incorrect doctrine to me, which by definition means they can’t be real. And I look at them and wonder how it isn’t clear as day to the CC that there is something amiss. That is what I find really worrying, because I know the CC understands the limitations and dangers. So why these worrying things.

Some people have pointed out that the Orthodox and some Anglicans also pay much respect to and venerate Mary (as they should.) But what you don’t see is this obsession with new messages or private revelation being made public.

It really bothers me that so many think that the approval of the CC about a personal appearance means the CC is saying it really happened, or that it is proved. Allowing people to believe that seems really wrong, for many reasons.
 
GKC said:
If Tantum worships Mary, that will make a total of one RC I have met who does so. I await the reply.

GKC
Click to expand...
crowds goes ohhhhhhh :clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:
 
GKC said:
Decree of nullity. Not divorce. Different thing.

GKC
Click to expand...
Thank you for the clarification. I believe the poster knew that already but surely hesitated to present his statement accurately.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
The problem, Kyle, is that you personally are insisting on only ONE definition of the word ‘worship’-- a modern one applied to "God alone’.

You are conveniently ignoring that the word ‘worship’ did not historically refer to ‘God alone’.
Your own EPISOCOPAL MARRIAGE SERVICE uses the word ‘worship’ when the MAN states “with my body I thee WORSHIP” to his wife.

If your men can worship their wives with their bodies, then ‘worship’ obviously does not always, only, and solely refer to that owed to God alone. . .does it Kyle?
Click to expand...
So does the oath which the Prince of Wales swears to the Sovereign:

“I, (name), Prince of Wales, do become your liege man of life and limb and of earthly worship and faith and truth I will bear unto you …”

GKC
 
followingtheway said:
She/He doesn’t and neither do we… -____-
Click to expand...
It’s She. . .

I do not give Mary worship as is currently (modern sense) understood to be that which is owed to God alone.

I venerate her. This is less than worship and greater than the kind of honor that we have for those such as our parents (whom Scripture tells us to honor in the commandments), because her Son was greater than we are and as He has become our Brother, God is our Father and Mary our mother.

But etymologically speaking, in centuries past the word ‘worship’ did not have the ‘modern’ meaning that modern Protestants use now. Thus Kyle’s own brothers in his church understood that ‘worship’ was not something always and only related to ‘God alone’ and thus British judges are even today addressed as ‘your worship’. . .and heaven knows the British people don’t worship their judges as God!

Kyle must either acknowledge that if in a 17th century prayer the word ‘worship’ is used, it does not INVARIABLY have to mean 'worship as we understand in the Protestant sense in 21st century America". . .or obviously even in 20th century GREAT BRITAIN in the Anglican marriage service! – or else he’ll have to convict his own people of worshipping their wives instead of God!
 
Tantum_ergo said:
It’s She. . .

I do not give Mary worship as is currently (modern sense) understood to be that which is owed to God alone.

I venerate her. This is less than worship and greater than the kind of honor that we have for those such as our parents (whom Scripture tells us to honor in the commandments), because her Son was greater than we are and as He has become our Brother, God is our Father and Mary our mother.

But etymologically speaking, in centuries past the word ‘worship’ did not have the ‘modern’ meaning that modern Protestants use now. Thus Kyle’s own brothers in his church understood that ‘worship’ was not something always and only related to ‘God alone’ and thus British judges are even today addressed as ‘your worship’. . .and heaven knows the British people don’t worship their judges as God!

Kyle must either acknowledge that if in a 17th century prayer the word ‘worship’ is used, it does not INVARIABLY have to mean 'worship as we understand in the Protestant sense in 21st century America". . .or obviously even in 20th century GREAT BRITAIN in the Anglican marriage service! – or else he’ll have to convict his own people of worshipping their wives instead of God!
Click to expand...
.
Hey, I’ll give you alot of credit. Your answer is very honest I thought.
 
GKC said:
Ok by me. If folks didn’t make that very common mistake, I’d lose 15% of my posting opportunities.

GKC
Click to expand...
BTW GKC. You obviously are an Anglican. Where exactly are you in Anglicanism? Are you in the Communion or not? Just curious.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top