Why do Catholics "worship" Mary?
#21
(04-16-2015, 11:15 PM)Poche Wrote:
(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.
>:( >:( >:(

Correct if you mean by latria.


N.
Reply
#22
(04-16-2015, 04:44 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: 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.

Dogmas are mysteries  :) That's why they can only be believed by faith.  A dogma is a truth revealed by God.  Mary's role in our redemption has been revealed by God. Ergo...

That being said, I don't think this truth is denied anywhere in the Church, so there is no real need for an extraordinary definition--the ordinary Magisterium has been sufficient. It is not controversial with the Eastern Orthodox either, and is found among their saints and in their liturgies. The point I have been trying to make is that what is controversial--what is the real stumbling-block--is the title, which for most folks who hear it implies a kind of equality that goes well beyond what is found in Scripture and Tradition and what the Church actually teaches concerning Mary's role in redemption.  The title is certainly not a dogma--God certainly did not reveal this particular title.

I think we're actually on the same page, which is why I don't think the title should be a prominent one--at least in my experience, it does not lead to concord in truth. But neither do I think the true role of the Mother of God in our redemption should be passed over for fear of offending the separated brethren (that is false ecumenism).
Reply
#23
The title is really what gets me,i don't like it at all. I'm profoundly and deeply uncomfortable with it. Honestly i don't foresee any papal pronouncement of this anytime in the near future so we can leave it as a mystery. By the way I checked out those entries from the Catechism yesterday and was edified. :)
Reply
#24
(04-16-2015, 11:10 PM)1seeker Wrote:
(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.

Well, yes, the Anti-Christ only makes sense in reference to Christ.

Posit a really evil guy in say in pre-Christian Egypt ... let's call him Pharao .. we couldn't call him an antichrist, because there's no Christ to reference yet. Only in a very analogical way after the fact and in view of the Messias that would come could we possible call him an antichrist. Analogies only work when there's a Prime Analogate.

Such a one is the antithesis of Christ. The term is likewise Christocentric, even if the person it references is clearly not.

In the case of the Co-Redeemer, clearly this is meant to unite the Redeemer and the person referenced by "Co-Redeemer". That's the nature of the prefix "Co-" -- to indicate a share in something.

In the case of the Anti-Christ, clearly this is meant to divide Christ and the person referenced by "Antichrist". That's the nature of the prefix "Anti-" -- to indicate something is contrary to, against, or the antithesis of.
Reply
#25
Here is the way I see it.

1. Mary was in God's mind before creation came into being. God knew that he would create man. God knew that man would fall. God knew that Christ would come into the world to redeem man and that in order for this to happen he needed the most perfect being that could possibly be created to bring him into the world.

2. Satan rebels against God because of his pride. For one, God would send his Son to be the King of all men. A Son, who Satan did not realize was also God himself nor did he probably care. Two, the one who was to bring Christ into the world would be a perfect human being with no defect and would also be the Queen of Heaven. Satan thought that he himself should be King of mankind and the fact that this human would be elevated greater than even himself was the last straw. The fact that this woman would be the one who would crush the head of the serpent makes him despise her much more. Many exorcists have revealed the hatred that evil spirits have for Mary.

3.  Mary is the most perfect being in all of God's creation (heaven and our universe) besides God Himself.

4. Mary's desire to serve God is unparalleled.

5. Mary's humility is unparalleled.

6. Mary excels at all aspects of religious life and knowledge beyond what any man is capable of.

7. God's love for Mary eclipses any other creature because of this.

8. Christ gave Mary to be the mother of all men when on the Cross (dicit matri suæ: Mulier, ecce filius tuus.  Deinde dicit discipulo: Ecce mater tua.)

9. God cannot say no to his mother because he adores her above all others. We see examples of Christ obeying her at the temple when he goes and "becomes subject to them" and then again at the wedding feast at Cana when she says "do whatever he tells you." God does not obey Mary because he has to, but he does so out of love for her.

10. When someone brings their petitions to Mary, she can offer them to God in a way that no man can because of God's great love for her.

11. Any man who serves Mary has the most powerful intercessor in Heaven. At the hour of death, she can intercede on our behalf to save our souls from damnation. Many have given accounts of this occurrence.
Reply
#26
A minor gripe, GangGreen: Mary's "do whatever he tells you" was said to the servants. She was telling them to obey Christ, she wasn't giving Christ an order as you imply. And his obedience to her as a child seems to me to be better explained by his adherence to the commandment to "honour your father and your mother", rather than by her perfection.
Reply
#27
I would counter that while she said this to his servants. She did so in a way that it was a command to Christ. Let's not forget only a few moments earlier he told her that his time had not arrived. Also at the temple he made himself subject to her until his time were to arrive. One would figure that she offered a prayer that it would begin there and then. At which point Christ agreed.
Reply
#28
(04-17-2015, 05:26 PM)GangGreen Wrote: I would counter that while she said this to his servants. She did so in a way that it was a command to Christ. Let's not forget only a few moments earlier he told her that his time had not arrived. Also at the temple he made himself subject to her until his time were to arrive. One would figure that she offered a prayer that it would begin there and then. At which point Christ agreed.

Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come.”

His tone certainly doesn't suggest subjection to me. She made a request and he complied with it, the same way he'd comply with any other prayer.
Reply
#29
(04-16-2015, 04:44 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: What would be the point, other than to further drive a wedge between Catholics and the various Orthodox churches?

Further clarification of the Virgin Mary's role in the order of things, therefore giving more glory to God.

Quote:I would think that to papally define Mary as co redemptrix would effectively slam the door on any hope of reunion.

There's definitely no beating around the bush. The Eastern Orthodox must accept all the councils, and all the infallible decrees of the Pope in order to rejoin properly. There won't be Church A and Church B, where one side is bound to believe in the Dormition and the other in the Assumption (though granted the two are similar, they're not the same). They will have to accept the Immaculate Conception, and for the same reason that we have to accept it.They will have to accept that the filioque is not inconsistent with the Creed.

And they'll have to accept that for a 1000 years, The Church was right, and they were on the wrong side.

For the sake of obstinacy I could imagine a decision like this being postponed for a while. However its not like the Eastern Orthodox patriarchs are doing everything in their power to rejoin The Church "If only the Catholics would restrain their Marian devotion a little..." There's quite a bit more in this process than devotion to the Lady getting in the way.

Personally I believe they're part of the Church, just imperfectly. That's a personal opinion, and I only trust it as much as that, however I don't see why the Virgin Mary role in salvation would be a greater humble pill for them to swallow than accepting the filioque.
Reply
#30
(04-17-2015, 06:31 PM)Dirigible Wrote:
(04-17-2015, 05:26 PM)GangGreen Wrote: I would counter that while she said this to his servants. She did so in a way that it was a command to Christ. Let's not forget only a few moments earlier he told her that his time had not arrived. Also at the temple he made himself subject to her until his time were to arrive. One would figure that she offered a prayer that it would begin there and then. At which point Christ agreed.

Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come.”

His tone certainly doesn't suggest subjection to me. She made a request and he complied with it, the same way he'd comply with any other prayer.
God is never subject to Mary or anyone else in a sense. However, scripture makes it clear that he was subject to her.  Also, the tone is taken out of context due to translation. He's pretty much saying, why does that concern us. Do you honestly think Christ would harshly say "Woman" to His Mother as would sound today? Today it sounds like a rude and terrible thing to say to one's mother.

Luke 2:51 Wrote:51 And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them. And his mother kept all these words in her heart.

God in His humility subjected himself to his earthly parents. Either way, it doesn't mean he isn't more likely to comply with her prayers/requests. At her urging he began to show the world the first signs of who he is at the wedding feast in Cana. Whether he would begin it at that moment otherwise can be debated. However, it seems pretty clear in Scripture.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)