To set the Record straight Catholics do not worship Mary!

[CentralFLJames]

Thank you and keep fighting for the Gospel brother! Nothing can separate us from the love of God.

Peace.

Nothing except not repenting of sin and not reciprocating that love by turning one’s back on and slandering His Church, His Bride and dishonoring His Mother through calumny.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

**This will make one ill!

He was pleased to humble Himself and to be subject to Mary, as we are told by St. Luke: “And He was subject to them.” (2) And still more, says Saint Ambrose, Jesus Christ having deigned to make Mary His Mother, inasmuch as He was her Son, He was truly obliged to obey her. And for this reason, says Richard of Saint Lawrence, “of other Saints we say that they are with God; but of Mary alone can it be said that she was so far favored as to be not only herself submissive to the will of God, but even that God was subject to her will.” (3) And whereas of all other virgins, remarks the same author, we must say that “they follow the Lamb wherever he goes” (4) of the Blessed Virgin Mary we can say that the Lamb followed her, having become subject to her. (5)…

I can’t even read the thing; it is so blasphemous! Oh God help them!**

Do you even read your bible??

Luke 2:49-51And He said to them, “Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in My Father’s house?” 50 But they did not understand the statement which He had made to them. 51 And He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and He continued in subjection to them; and His mother treasured all these things in her heart.

Do you get as excitable when somone sprinkles you with Holy Water? Any burning sensations?

James

 

[Non_Serviam]

Mary devotion is biblical. It begins with the Magi bowing to worship Mary with Child in the manger scene.

[snip]

James

Other non-Catholics,

James has posted a statement that according to us and the Catholic Church is in error. (The grammar has Mary being worshiped no matter how you slice it). I’m certain his fingers simply typed faster than his brain and no untoward belief is occasioned in it.

In allowing this to happen, God has granted James the opportunity to demonstrate the humility to us that Catholics claim by acknowledging his error and accepting that what he wrote was incorrect (a slip of the pen rather than heresy) and correcting it.

Or, he can bluff and bluster and attempt to “reinterpret” what he wrote and confirm the impression that some have that Catholics believe they do no wrong-a sort of “personal infallibility”.

So give him time to think about this and make his choice instead of hounding him, please.

 

[adrift]

**This will make one ill!

He was pleased to humble Himself and to be subject to Mary, as we are told by St. Luke: “And He was subject to them.” (2) And still more, says Saint Ambrose, Jesus Christ having deigned to make Mary His Mother, inasmuch as He was her Son, He was truly obliged to obey her. And for this reason, says Richard of Saint Lawrence, “of other Saints we say that they are with God; but of Mary alone can it be said that she was so far favored as to be not only herself submissive to the will of God, but even that God was subject to her will.” (3) And whereas of all other virgins, remarks the same author, we must say that “they follow the Lamb wherever he goes” (4) of the Blessed Virgin Mary we can say that the Lamb followed her, having become subject to her. (5)…

I can’t even read the thing; it is so blasphemous! Oh God help them!**

Do you even read your bible??

Luke 2:49-51And He said to them, “Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in My Father’s house?” 50 But they did not understand the statement which He had made to them. 51 And He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and He continued in subjection to them; and His mother treasured all these things in her heart.

Do you get as excitable when somone sprinkles you with Holy Water? Any burning sensations?

James

Jesus kept all the laws and commandment including

Honor your father and your mother, that you may have a long life in the land which the LORD, your God, is giving you.

blasphemous?

a professed opinion that is not only erroneous but contemptuous of God or of holy things.

It seems what you posted is more in line with the definition.
Using this definition of worship, because there are more than one.

2: reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power ; also : an act of expressing such reverence

Catholics do not worship Mary. We do not believe she is divine nor has supernatural powers but that she has great influence as any good mother does with her child.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Other non-Catholics,

James has posted a statement that according to us and the Catholic Church is in error. (The grammar has Mary being worshiped no matter how you slice it). I’m certain his fingers simply typed faster than his brain and no untoward belief is occasioned in it.

In allowing this to happen, God has granted James the opportunity to demonstrate the humility to us that Catholics claim by acknowledging his error and accepting that what he wrote was incorrect (a slip of the pen rather than heresy) and correcting it.

Or, he can bluff and bluster and attempt to “reinterpret” what he wrote and confirm the impression that some have that Catholics believe they do no wrong-a sort of “personal infallibility”.

So give him time to think about this and make his choice instead of hounding him, please.

I am not a linguist and if I have violated some well known rule on lexical precedence I will make a correction. Let me explain that I do not make a logical differentiation between the following two forms of expression - they are both identical to me:

J AND M == M AND J

There is to me no precedence in the ordinal list that J comes before M or M before J - its as arbitrary to me that Mary was born before Jesus as it is that Jesus is son of Mary. They are both factual.

If I was to clarify my intention I would say it this way:
The magi bowed down to worship Child with Mother. Is that any different by changing the order? The point is that Mary can not be seperated from Jesus. Where Jesus is so is Mary (at birth and at death). The Magi can not have helped but to honor and venerate Mary by bringing her Son worship and by entrusting their offerings of gifts into her maternal care.

If you want to entrap me - then you have failed. If you want to be honest then you will see that the only generalization you can make here is that it is impossible to worship Jesus without also venerating his Mother since they two are relationally inseparable. Therefor it is perfectly proper to entrust one’s gifts of devotion to her trust for her Son - just as the Maggi did.

James

 

[Non_Serviam]

I am not a linguist and if I have violated some well known rule on lexical precedence I will make a correction. Let me explain that I do not make a logical differentiation between the following two forms of expression - they are both identical to me:

J AND M == M AND J

There is to me no precedence in the ordinal list that J comes before M or M before J - its as arbitrary to me that Mary was born before Jesus as it is that Jesus is son of Mary. They are both factual.

If I was to clarify my intention I would say it this way:
The magi bowed down to worship Child with Mother. Is that any different by changing the order? The point is that Mary can not be seperated from Jesus. Where Jesus is so is Mary (at birth and at death). The Magi can not have helped but to honor and venerate Mary by bringing her Son worship and by entrusting their offerings of gifts into her maternal care.

If you want to entrap me - then you have failed. If you want to be honest then you will see that the only generalization you can make here is that it is impossible to worship Jesus without also venerating his Mother since they two are relationally inseparable. Therefor it is perfectly proper to entrust one’s gifts of devotion to her trust for her Son - just as the Maggi did.

James

James,

It’s not linguistics, it’s grammar. Something which every school is supposed to teach.

It’s similar to the difference between “Dog bites man.” and “Man bites dog.” Changing subjects and objects changes the meaning of the sentence.

In the case of what you wrote, it is important which person follows the word “worship”. That person becomes the object of the verb-the worshipee if you will. The use of the word “with” in the next clause means that the name that follows it isn’t the object of the verb “worship”.

So saying “The Magi worship Mary with Child” has Mary as the object of worship. Saying The Magi worship the Child with Mary" has Jesus as the object of worship.

It’s English grammar-there’s no non-Catholic trick up my sleeve here. Ask any Catholic on this forum that you trust who is good with grammar.

I simply pointed out that, having made an honest mistake you have an opportunity to demonstrate humility or be defensive in this instance-which fruit would you like us to see?

 

[CentralFLJames]

Pete that’s not what scripture says. The church doesn’t even say scripture refers to Mary as the mother of GOD. You need to study history a little more carefully. Do you even know why Mary was called the Mother of GOD? It wasn’t to give her any special status. It was to affirm the deity of Christ…

I want to apologize to you NDFan - I jumped on you earlier due to a misread of your post. I was in a hurry to post before the thread closed and in skimming your comments it looked to me initially like you were challenging the title. I see now on the re-read you were accurately portraying the Church’s motive for using it.

Sorry

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

James,

It’s not linguistics, it’s grammar. Something which every school is supposed to teach.

It’s similar to the difference between “Dog bites man.” and “Man bites dog.” Changing subjects and objects changes the meaning of the sentence.

In the case of what you wrote, it is important which person follows the word “worship”. That person becomes the object of the verb-the worshipee if you will. The use of the word “with” in the next clause means that the name that follows it isn’t the object of the verb “worship”.

So saying “The Magi worship Mary with Child” has Mary as the object of worship. Saying The Magi worship the Child with Mary" has Jesus as the object of worship.

It’s English grammar-there’s no non-Catholic trick up my sleeve here. Ask any Catholic on this forum that you trust who is good with grammar.

I simply pointed out that, having made an honest mistake you have an opportunity to demonstrate humility or be defensive in this instance-which fruit would you like us to see?

I agree. Then take my revision. I rarely make grammar errors like this but it was typed in a hurry to make an appointment I had to go to.

So accept my revision:
The Magi worship the Child with Mary



Definitely not infallible.

James

 

[Non_Serviam]

I agree. Then take my revision. I rarely make grammar errors like this but it was typed in a hurry to make an appointment I had to go to.

So accept my revision:
The Magi worship the Child with Mary



Definitely not infallible.

James

Thanks-now if any non-Catholics get on you for having said that, I can/will growl at them.

I understand being rushed when writing things-believe me.

Have a good evening, James.

 

[pete_29]

I agree. Then take my revision. I rarely make grammar errors like this but it was typed in a hurry to make an appointment I had to go to.

So accept my revision:
The Magi worship the Child with Mary



Definitely not infallible.

James

Cheer up, you could be dense like me.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Cheer up, you could be dense like me.

Pete - don’t be so self effacing buddy. You are beating yourself up too much and if you keep it up someone might start calling you a Flaggelant. Pope Clement VI officially condemned the Flagellants in a bull of October 20, 1349.

For the record though - I am quite pleased with this outcome since the magi verse as reformulated proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that veneration of Mary in particular is biblical since the Magi honored her by worshiping her Son and by entrusting Mary with their finest gifts of worship.

So my reformulated expression "The Magi bowed down to and worshiped Child with mother" integrates the inseparable nature of Mother and Child with the principal that worship can be and most properly should be paired inseparably with veneration of Mary. Clearly when one honors or worships Jesus one also can NOT escape honoring Mary as His mother. And when one honors and venerates Mary one can NOT escape also honoring Jesus.

Thus this is a bullet proof case for Mary as co-advocate or co-mediatrix since it implicitly must ALWAYS put Mary through her “with” relationship to Jesus “in the channel” so to speak anytime Jesus is worshiped; and most certainly anytime one entrusts her with our offerings to her Son. After all what mother would not beam with pride at seeing her child worshiped and honored and what son would not glow anytime a friend entrusted a gift for him into his mother’s care?

This alone tells us that Mary can be used as a consecrated instrument of worship to God. If we also now add in Mary’s proclamation of truth – “my soul magnifies the Lord” the truth becomes even larger and she is clearly at our disposal for that purpose. Therefor, Protestants lacking the pure unblemished sacrifice of the Mass and the Holy Eucharist might do EXTREMELY well to use Mary as an expedient and efficacious instrument of worship to attain something closer to true worship (Latria) with their prayers and petitions until they can come back into full communion with the Catholic Church. It would certainly get all the way up to hyperdulia - and that’s getting close to true worship as so many of our Protestant friends like to point out and get nervous at.

James

 

[pete_29]

Pete - don’t be so self effacing buddy. You are beating yourself up too much and if you keep it up someone might start calling you a Flaggelant. Pope Clement VI officially condemned the Flagellants in a bull of October 20, 1349.

For the record though - I am quite pleased with this outcome since the magi verse as reformulated proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that veneration of Mary in particular is biblical since the Magi honored her by worshiping her Son and by entrusting Mary with their finest gifts of worship.

So my reformulated expression "The Magi bowed down to and worshiped Child with mother" integrates the inseparable nature of Mother and Child with the principal that worship can be and most properly should be paired inseparably with veneration of Mary. Clearly when one honors or worships Jesus one also can NOT escape honoring Mary as His mother. And when one honors and venerates Mary one can NOT escape also honoring Jesus.

Thus this is a bullet proof case for Mary as co-advocate or co-mediatrix since it implicitly must ALWAYS put Mary through her “with” relationship to Jesus “in the channel” so to speak anytime Jesus is worshiped; and most certainly anytime one entrusts her with our offerings to her Son. After all what mother would not beam with pride at seeing her child worshiped and honored and what son would not glow anytime a friend entrusted a gift for him into his mother’s care?

This alone tells us that Mary can be used as a consecrated instrument of worship to God. If we also now add in Mary’s proclamation of truth – “my soul magnifies the Lord” the truth becomes even larger and she is clearly at our disposal for that purpose. Therefor, Protestants lacking the pure unblemished sacrifice of the Mass and the Holy Eucharist might do EXTREMELY well to use Mary as an expedient and efficacious instrument of worship to attain something closer to true worship (Latria) with their prayers and petitions until they can come back into full communion with the Catholic Church. It would certainly get all the way up to hyperdulia - and that’s getting close to true worship as so many of our Protestant friends like to point out and get nervous at.

James

Thanks, but I was just making a joke, by the way isn’t a flagellant one of them one celled critters. Sorry sometimes I can’t resist the temptation.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Pete - don’t be so self effacing buddy. You are beating yourself up too much and if you keep it up someone might start calling you a Flaggelant. Pope Clement VI officially condemned the Flagellants in a bull of October 20, 1349.

For the record though - I am quite pleased with this outcome since the magi verse as reformulated proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that veneration of Mary in particular is biblical since the Magi honored her by worshiping her Son and by entrusting Mary with their finest gifts of worship.

So my reformulated expression "The Magi bowed down to and worshiped Child with mother" integrates the inseparable nature of Mother and Child with the principal that worship can be and most properly should be paired inseparably with veneration of Mary. Clearly when one honors or worships Jesus one also can NOT escape honoring Mary as His mother. And when one honors and venerates Mary one can NOT escape also honoring Jesus.

Thus this is a bullet proof case for Mary as co-advocate or co-mediatrix since it implicitly must ALWAYS put Mary through her “with” relationship to Jesus “in the channel” so to speak anytime Jesus is worshiped; and most certainly anytime one entrusts her with our offerings to her Son. After all what mother would not beam with pride at seeing her child worshiped and honored and what son would not glow anytime a friend entrusted a gift for him into his mother’s care?

This alone tells us that Mary can be used as a consecrated instrument of worship to God. If we also now add in Mary’s proclamation of truth – “my soul magnifies the Lord” the truth becomes even larger and she is clearly at our disposal for that purpose. Therefor, Protestants lacking the pure unblemished sacrifice of the Mass and the Holy Eucharist might do EXTREMELY well to use Mary as an expedient and efficacious instrument of worship to attain something closer to true worship (Latria) with their prayers and petitions until they can come back into full communion with the Catholic Church. It would certainly get all the way up to hyperdulia - and that’s getting close to true worship as so many of our Protestant friends like to point out and get nervous at.

James

James,

This verse proves that Mary must always be with Jesus just as much as the verses about Jesus in the temple prove that Mary must always be separate from Him. Either case would approach bad protestant-style prooftexting.

I will grant that the verse does provide interesting material for contemplation of the idea you put forth.

What I like about your new construction is that it can also be understood to mean that Mary is worshiping Jesus along with the Magi-that’s a belief that I truly hope we share.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Thanks, but I was just making a joke, by the way isn’t a flagellant one of them one celled critters. Sorry sometimes I can’t resist the temptation.

Excellent

That’s right up there with the one about the two British culinary religious-the fish friar and the chip monk.

 

[fuzzylogix]

Basically… We can pray to Mary for her intercession, and God can work through her to reach and help us if He chooses. Just as He can use any one of us to reach and help others

I see this type of thing stated often. I must admit I did not have the time to read through all 70 pages of this thread so far, but may I then ask an earnest question? I apologise if it has already been dealt with earlier in this thread.

How do you reconcile the idea of Mary’s intercession for you with what Paul said:

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

This verse seems to indicate that Christ alone has the divine right of intercession for us, and no other. To assign this right to Mary as well…would that not in effect infringe upon the divine right afforded Christ?

I read somewhere that Catholics call Mary by the title “mediatrix” sometimes. I can’t help but feel that this appears to be a form of usurpation of Christ’s role?

 

[pete_29]

Excellent

That’s right up there with the one about the two British culinary religious-the fish friar and the chip monk.

That was terrible, but good. Sorry off topic.

 

[fuzzylogix]

Also, if this quote from Ecclesiastes is true (as it undoubtedly is, seeing as it is God’s Word):

Ecc 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

does this not seem to show that once a person dies, they pretty much become unconcious, “knowing nothing”, until such time as God sees fit to resurrect them (on predestined days of resurrection, when all of mankind is brought to life together). Indeed, if Mary or any of the other saints are alive and interceding in heaven, what need could they have of resurrection?

Would this make the Bible verses that deal with the resurrection invalid or flawed? Or are certain people exempt from having to be unconcious in death? I really know almost nothing of Catholic doctrine, so I’m asking sincerely.