Why do Catholics "worship" Mary?
#11
And I also like to use these verses in discussing this issue with Protestants:

Quote:{P}ray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much.For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much.

James 5:16.

Quote:And so terrible was that which was seen, Moses said: I am frighted, and tremble.  But you are come to mount Sion, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to the company of many thousands of angels,  And to the church of the firstborn, who are written in the heavens, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of the just made perfect,  And to Jesus the mediator of the new testament, and to the sprinkling of blood which speaketh better than that of Abel.

Hebrews 12:24.  (In other words, it's all part of the same package. Both/and, not either/or.)

My favorite feast day is November 1st.
Reply
#12
(04-16-2015, 01:48 PM)1seeker Wrote:
(04-16-2015, 08:57 AM)aquinas138 Wrote: the veneration of Mary is Christocentric. Why, after all, did the Council of Ephesus insist on the title Theotokos (God-bearer, Mother of God)? To reinforce the true divinity of Jesus Christ. Without doubt, such a lofty title redounds to Our Lady's own glory as well, but the true purpose of the title is to proclaim the truth about Christ.

That may have been true then, but many argue that Mary has her own independent merit as well. Think about the dogma of Immaculate Conception, which deals purely with Mary's own "worth" (if you will) without touching on Christ. Think also of the idea of Mary as the Co-Redemptrix of mankind which was close to being pronounced dogma under Pius XII and which many traditionalists cling to today. See also the opinions from Sacred Tradition, such as this:

"The learned and pious Jesuit, Suarez, the erudite and devout Justus Lipsius, Doctor of Louvain, and many others have proved invincibly, from the sentiments of the Fathers, that devotion to Our Blessed Lady is necessary for salvation, and that it is an infallible mark of reprobation to have no esteem and love for the Holy Virgin; while on the other hand, it is an infallible mark of predestination to be entirely and truly devoted to Her." (St. Montfort)

The bolded portion is unfortunately worded. The dogma of the IC itself says that she is only preserved by the "foreseen merits of Christ." If she is Co-Redemptrix, this is not apart from Christ, and her role in Redemption is indeed inferior to His. The Blessed Virgin is called blessed by all generations precisely because of the great things God has done for her - see her own words in the Magnificat.

Also, while I find St. Montfort's methods of saying the Rosary useful, I think he tends to the hyperbolic at times. I am deeply suspicious of things "proved" only in the last few centuries based chiefly on the speculations of recent authors, no matter how esteemed. I would agree that devotion to the Virgin is necessary, if we understand that devotion in the sense of the liturgical piety of the Church, not the hyper-Marianism of latter-day private devotions. To insist on the latter violates the famous quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus of St. Vincent of Lerins.
Reply
#13
(04-16-2015, 09:48 AM)CaptCrunch73 Wrote: Unless you want to spend a bunch of time on dulia, hyperdulia and latria keep it simple.

It's not that complicated to go there ...

It's one of the easier parts of the Summa : ST III q. 25 a. 5

Latria -- worship (properly speaking) -- honor, adoration and reverence due to God alone.

Dulia -- honor/praise -- honor, adoration and reverence below the level due to God alone, thus the kind of honor given to men, living or not.

(Apologetical note: we're not doing any more to relics, saints, priests, bishops, or Popes than we would to any other human being. We talk about "dignified" treatment of the dead in which we specially care for the bodies of the deceased. We keep things that belonged to our dead friends and relatives just like relics. We ask others for prayers. We honor men for their virtue and excellence. The only difference is that the Catholic asserts that the dead Saints, including Mary, not only deserve the honor we accord the dead, but also can still hear our requests for their help.)


What St. Thomas says is that we can "worship" with latria God, and even inanimate objects too but which directly represent God insofar as they represent God. Thus a Crucifix can be given latria, as we do on Good Friday when we venerate the Cross. Even though the rubrics only allow an inanimate representation of the True Cross to be used in the Liturgy, we still genuflect to it and kiss it.

An inanimate object is not capable of being worshiped for its own sake if one acts with reason.

It is hypothetically possible to give latria to God through Mary, in fact. We could "worship" Mary, in so far as she is Mother of God, in fact. This would not be a dishonor to God, so long as we only do so as we do with the Cross -- only as referred to Christ. The difficulty is that Mary is not an inanimate object, but a living being. Living beings are capable of being worshiped for their own sakes, so such latria would easily become improper.

Thus, we only give to Mary the highest of human praise and honor, since she was the one most closely united to Christ. We call this "hyperdulia"
Reply
#14
(04-16-2015, 03:22 PM)aquinas138 Wrote:
(04-16-2015, 01:48 PM)1seeker Wrote:
(04-16-2015, 08:57 AM)aquinas138 Wrote: the veneration of Mary is Christocentric. Why, after all, did the Council of Ephesus insist on the title Theotokos (God-bearer, Mother of God)? To reinforce the true divinity of Jesus Christ. Without doubt, such a lofty title redounds to Our Lady's own glory as well, but the true purpose of the title is to proclaim the truth about Christ.

That may have been true then, but many argue that Mary has her own independent merit as well. Think about the dogma of Immaculate Conception, which deals purely with Mary's own "worth" (if you will) without touching on Christ. Think also of the idea of Mary as the Co-Redemptrix of mankind which was close to being pronounced dogma under Pius XII and which many traditionalists cling to today. See also the opinions from Sacred Tradition, such as this:

"The learned and pious Jesuit, Suarez, the erudite and devout Justus Lipsius, Doctor of Louvain, and many others have proved invincibly, from the sentiments of the Fathers, that devotion to Our Blessed Lady is necessary for salvation, and that it is an infallible mark of reprobation to have no esteem and love for the Holy Virgin; while on the other hand, it is an infallible mark of predestination to be entirely and truly devoted to Her." (St. Montfort)

The bolded portion is unfortunately worded. The dogma of the IC itself says that she is only preserved by the "foreseen merits of Christ." If she is Co-Redemptrix, this is not apart from Christ, and her role in Redemption is indeed inferior to His. The Blessed Virgin is called blessed by all generations precisely because of the great things God has done for her - see her own words in the Magnificat.

Also, while I find St. Montfort's methods of saying the Rosary useful, I think he tends to the hyperbolic at times. I am deeply suspicious of things "proved" only in the last few centuries based chiefly on the speculations of recent authors, no matter how esteemed. I would agree that devotion to the Virgin is necessary, if we understand that devotion in the sense of the liturgical piety of the Church, not the hyper-Marianism of latter-day private devotions. To insist on the latter violates the famous quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus of St. Vincent of Lerins.


You put this very nicely.  No apostolic Christian ( Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox) should reject the Theotokos outright, but the devotions to her are not necessary for salvation outside of what is already in the liturgy and the Office. Personally I find the Marian Antiphons at the end of Compline in the Benedictine Office, along with a simple " unto thee do I commit mine every hope o mother of God, guard me under thy shelter"  before the icons once a day enough for my tastes. I admit my style is more Zen and Cistercian in its minamalism whether it's Marian devotion or anything else.

Might I also say that the whole co- redemptrix idea kind of rubs me the wrong way. Even if it's true it seems grossly hyperbolic and verging on blasphemy, not to mention totally unnecessary to have to formally dogmatize. Mariology should always always always point to Christ since she has nothing apart from Him.

Indeed theosis is true for all of us, but it is by participation, and that includes the Theotokos. She is sanctified by Christ, made holy by Christ, and any grace that flows through her ultimately has its source in Him.

Reply
#15
(04-16-2015, 04:04 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: Might I also say that the whole co- redemptrix idea kind of rubs me the wrong way. Even if it's true it seems grossly hyperbolic and verging on blasphemy, not to mention totally unnecessary to have to formally dogmatize. Mariology should always always always point to Christ since she has nothing apart from Him.

Indeed theosis is true for all of us, but it is by participation, and that includes the Theotokos. She is sanctified by Christ, made holy by Christ, and any grace that flows through her ultimately has its source in Him.

I think the problem is with the phrase "Co-Redemptrix" as it almost invariably causes the reaction you have and misunderstandings.  The underlying truth it is intended to convey (ie Mary's unique role in our redemption), but usually doesn't, is found sufficiently in Sacred Scripture to be considered revealed by God (ie to be "dogmatized"), IMO.  It is put forth in the Catechism in pars. 618 and 964-970.

I think St. John Damascene sums it up in a nicely balanced way in one of his prayers to the Mother of God, where he says God "has introduced you into the world to help bring about our salvation in fulfillment of his plan: the Incarnation of his Son and the Divinization of the human race."



Reply
#16
(04-16-2015, 04:04 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: Might I also say that the whole co- redemptrix idea kind of rubs me the wrong way. Even if it's true it seems grossly hyperbolic and verging on blasphemy, not to mention totally unnecessary to have to formally dogmatize. Mariology should always always always point to Christ since she has nothing apart from Him.

"Co-"

Not to be cheeky, but that prefix like a dangling preposition demands an object. If one is Co-Redeemer, then that is obviously in reference to the Redeemer. It is necessarily a Christo-centric term.

Aside from pious practices recommended, like that of St. Louis de Montfort, there is solid scholastic theology supporting the terminology, and clarifying in many way how Christ merited, what He merited, and how others merit.

I do agree, however, absent the study of the theology behind this, and looking at it merely from a devotional stand-point leads very easily to hyperbolic and emotionalized devotion. But I would object that the theologians like Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange in his The Mother of the Savior, could be called "hyperbolic" or even "verging on blasphemy". In fact it provides, IMHO, a very solidly-founded, doctrinally-based devotional life.

Pietas cum doctrina.
Reply
#17
I think the prayer from St John of Damascus makes sense, but still, why make a dogma out of it? Why not just leave it a mystery? I'm sure the Theotokos, being the humble woman that she is, would not want us drawing more attention to her than is necessary.  In some ways the very silent and humble portrayal of her in the scripture is enough. She is the mother of God, the Theotokos,and that is enough. No need for a new dogma. What would be the point, other than to further drive a wedge between Catholics and the various Orthodox churches? I would think that to papally define Mary as co redemptrix would effectively slam the door on any hope of reunion.
Reply
#18
We don't! We honour Mary with hyperdulia which is glory given through Her to Her Son. Only the Holy and Divine Trinity is worshipped with latria (adoration, worship, etc.). The other Saints are honoured with dulia, which is also passed on to Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Reply
#19
(04-16-2015, 04:24 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: "Co-"

Not to be cheeky, but that prefix like a dangling preposition demands an object. If one is Co-Redeemer, then that is obviously in reference to the Redeemer. It is necessarily a Christo-centric term.

This is like saying that "Anti-Christ" has as its reference the Christ and is therefore Christocentric.


(04-16-2015, 03:22 PM)aquinas138 Wrote: The bolded portion is unfortunately worded. The dogma of the IC itself says that she is only preserved by the "foreseen merits of Christ."
What you've said does not disqualify my words, because the ultimate object of this dogma was the heightened value of Mary, even if it came through the merits of Christ. There was no substantial Christocentric goal in the declaration of the IC (maybe a peripheral one, here or there).


Quote:If she is Co-Redemptrix, this is not apart from Christ, and her role in Redemption is indeed inferior to His.
Surely it does mean that it is together with Christ, i.e. a fortiori that he had not been alone in Redeeming the world, however less the other party.


Quote:Also, while I find St. Montfort's methods of saying the Rosary useful, I think he tends to the hyperbolic at times.
I tend to agree with you but St. Louis has been effectively canonized in among traditionalists, and prior to that, by the nineteenth century Popes. I would say the same extends to St. Alphonsus.


Quote:I am deeply suspicious of things "proved" only in the last few centuries based chiefly on the speculations of recent authors, no matter how esteemed. I would agree that devotion to the Virgin is necessary, if we understand that devotion in the sense of the liturgical piety of the Church, not the hyper-Marianism of latter-day private devotions. To insist on the latter violates the famous quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus of St. Vincent of Lerins.
Agreed, but unfortunately we are in the minority. It is hard to see how we are to proceed with this line of thought, since these great Marian authors have been effectively canonized by Sacred Tradition.
Reply
#20
(04-16-2015, 08:34 AM)AllSeasons Wrote: My wife and I volunteered to do an apologetics presentation to our church group on why Catholics "worship" Mary.  We have some ideas, but would love to hear some more.  And what better place to ask for help than the traditional forum that I frequent?  So yea, we need some suggestions, sources, videos, books, and whatever else you can help us with.  Thank you in advance!
I think your strting point is incorrect. Catholics do not worship Mary.
>:( >:( >:(
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)