Ok, as a Protestant, I look as an outsider at the practices of the Roman Catholic Church in regard to the Mother Mary. From my perspective, it appears they are "worshipping" Mary. However, Catholics assure me that this is not what they are doing. I am willing to accept this answer. But I would like to know one question - in practical application, how do you (Catholics, for those that are on the board) treat Mary differently to the way you treat Jesus? As one example, what makes praying to Mary a sign of respect and praying to Jesus an act of worship? Preferably, I would like some form of biblical basis that you may have to make this assertion. All answers appreciated, thanks

Most Catholics I have asked all have different answers. Some also place a ton of stock into saints and others place less. Depends on the region and then on the person I believe but hearing more views would be appreciated. I have had some Catholics shocked when I tell them I do not believe in Mary and that I just believe in Jesus.

From what I have been given to understand ,they are asking for Mary to intercede on their behalf with her son Jesus ,just as in happens here on earth when we ask some one to "put a word in for us".it makes sense that the "Mother of God " has some influence with her "son"

fullywired

^ Mary interceding for us then. See, this is why I asked for Bible references, because it is not in the Bible that I am aware of (nowhere does it say that Mary can intercede for us, nor does it say that she should). However, someone is listed in the Bible as interceding on our behalf - and that's Jesus - but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. (Hebrews 7:24-25). As I said, from a Protestant perspective, I don't see much difference between respecting Mary and worshipping Jesus, and from our perspective, asking Mary to intercede on our behalf is giving Mary the job that the Bible gave to Jesus, which just adds to the confusion. And which is why I asked the question - in practical application, how is respecting Mary different to worshipping Jesus? It appears in Catholicism, both act as intercessors - what are the differences?

Know what I mean.

here is a site that may answer some of your questions Link

hope it helps =P

as an ex roman catholic , Mary was considered like a mother to all . Very respected and as an intercessor with her son.

We should acknowledge both Mother Mary and Jesus. And no, I am not Chatholic or of any religion. You shouldnt limit yourself to todays Bible, if your inner voice is seeking answers, you need to realize there were many text that were written and observed for a long time. Many books were not included in the Bible. Make a list of what text were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and look up lost books of the Bible, study them all. Early Christians as well as many or all religions read many other text to grow spiritually way back then. Mother Mary stood for the feminine of Gods polarity. This feminine masciline goes all the way back to everything that ever was. Earth-Sky, Light-Dark, Line-circle-Obilisk-Temple, Wisdom-Knowledge, Adam-Eve. Before the Jesus' birth, Temple Goddess worship was very common. Some say that Marys Mother was very involved with the Temple worship. That is the reason, so to say, that many stories about Marys family history is left out of the bible. Too much hidden background that went against what the new church was trying to bring about.

I do agree though, that Catholics as well as Christians, are both wrong. They both display idols in their church. I dont ever find in any text, God or Jesus saying to put a statue of anything in a church, not even a statue of Jesus on the cross. To me, when I walk in a church and see Christ being displayed, I feel its wrong. A church should be a place of gathering to acknowledge a higher spirit, a higher energy. Everything in a church should be of natural materials and no items should be displayed. The more items displayed, the more unholy it becomes.

Zing! Agreed.

What I disagree with is that we should discard the Bible to follow god and goddess worship. Some can do that if they wish I will not tell them otherwise. But if someone says we should discard the Bible my view will state that those who believe in it have no problem sticking with it for it is every bit as valid today as it was yesterday. My inner voice can pray to the One True God and Him alone as stated in the Bible and His Spirit that dwells within affirms the Word.

On a historical level what sources do you have that claim Mary was into temple goddess worship? There are many who propose such theories but none based in actual historical sources. Mists of Avalon though is one of my favorite movies. Mary's lineage is presented in Luke BTW. There are some well known figures in that genealogy.



That is what I have heard before but I wonder why know Catholics every answer why they do it if the Bible says otherwise.



On another point for others. When the shepherds returned to the manger scene they praised God and God alone. Mary was not singled out for any time of religious reverence.



The following shows that Mary is favored but that word is 'charitoo' which means 'grace' and again she is told she has found favor with God which is the word 'charis' now but still means she has 'due to grace'. Mary was chosen not because she was holier than anyone else but because like all of us who are born sinners she was given grace. The angel further explains her son would be the Son of the Most High and such which showed the specialness of the baby yet none was conferred to her in reference to being most high anything.



Next Mary declares herself a servant of the Lord. Not equal to God but a servant to God.



Again magnifies God and declares He is the Savior. Mary cannot save us if she herself needs salvation. She does sing that she will be called blessed which is the word 'makarizo' the same word used in James 5:11 to say all those are blessed who remain steadfast.





We are to praise God and His name is Jesus.



Our spiritual sacrifices go to God through Jesus Christ.



Our worries should be casted to God alone, all our anxieties, not on anyone else.





It seems Omnaka has it right in that we can be Jesus' brother and sister if we do His work. Even His mother so Mary is not unique in this. I knew we would agree on more than one thing or two ^__^



We should be careful not to love a mother or even a father or even a son or daughter more than we love God for we will not be worthy of Him.



I understand others have different views of Mary and that is fine. They are not biblical but they are their views and I can understand the appeal to want to place Mary in a special position, even view her as the goddess, but for those who strive for biblical purity and taking the whole of the Word as one and honoring the Word made flesh in Jesus and the Word that created all then we should only worship God and no other.

Of course it doesn't say so in the bible ,when they wrote the bible they hadn't decided that Jesus was divine or that Mary conceived with the holy spirit, all that came later when Paul invented Christianity


fullywired

Putting the original topic of this thread aside for a moment, I must state, with absolute respect to your opinion, that I myself take issue with it. I personally own several religious icons of Jesus, the Virgin Mary, and the Archangel Michael. Now, I am not a Catholic or part of the Eastern Orthodox church, and while I rarely go to church, when I do, I prefer to go to those churches. It is a different experience. When I walk into a typical evangelical church like the ones you talk about, they often seem spiritually bankrupt, and I feel more like I'm walking into some social club of which I'm not a part, so I just sit in the back and hope no one talks to me. On the other hand, when I walk into an Eastern Orthodox church, lush with beautiful icons as the priests are singing vespers, yes, this stirs my soul and often brings tears to my eyes. Its about atmosphere to me. It creates a mood of absolute reverence for me. Its the same for me in Catholic churches, I really enjoy taking part in Mass; because again, its all symbolic, and to me, it enhances the spiritual experience. Contemporary forms of worship certainly does have its place; its done an excellent job of bringing younger people in, etc., but I just don't care for it. Never have. I'm pleased that this current Pope is trying to make the old style more prevalent again.

Unholy? Why is it unholy? Now, I see it to a point, if you're praying TO the icon before you, because then its like the Biblical Golden Calf. But what is wrong with looking at an Icon or a statue of Jesus as you pray, a visualization, as you think of Him and pray to Him. This battle against icons has been going on for centuries, and led to so many beautiful works of art being destroyed. Icons themselves got started right after the time of Christ, and continued into the early church, because so many of the people were uneducated, and these icons were used to teach them the stories of the Bible. Think of it as a Bible picture book, and this goes back to the cave drawings of the early Christians. Surely this is not heresy or idolatry of any kind!

“We decree with full precision and care that, like the figure of the honored and life-giving cross, the revered and holy images, whether painted or made of mosaic or of other suitable material, are to be exposed in the holy churches of God, on sacred instruments and vestments, on walls and panels, in houses and by public ways; these are the images of our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ, and of Our Lady without blemish, the holy God-bearer, and of the revered angels, and of any of the saintly holy men.”

— Second Council of Nicaea (Seventh Ecumenical Council) - 787 A.D

"Now, as we are talking of images and worship, let us analyse the exact meaning of each. An image is a likeness of the original with a certain difference, for it is not an exact reproduction of the original. Thus, the Son is the living, substantial, unchangeable Image of the invisible God, bearing in Himself the whole Father, being in all things equal to Him, differing only in being begotten by the Father, who is the Begetter; the Son is begotten. The Father does not proceed from the Son, but the Son from the Father. It is through the Son, though not after Him, that He is what He is, the Father who generates. In God, too, there are representations and images of His future acts,-that is to say, His counsel from all eternity, which is ever unchangeable. That which is divine is immutable; there is no change in Him, nor shadow of change. Blessed Denis, [note: the Pseudo-Dionysius] who has made divine things in God's presence his study, says that these representations and images arc marked out beforehand. In His counsels, God has noted and settled all that He would do, the unchanging future events before tbey came to pass. In the same way, a man who wished to build a house would first make and think out a plan. Again, visible things are images of invisible and intangible things, on which they throw a faint light. Holy Scripture clothes in figure God and the angels, and the same holy man (Blessed Denis) explains why. When sensible things sufficiently render what is beyond sense, and give a form to what is intangible, a medium would be reckoned imperfect according to our standard, if it did not fully represent material vision, or if it required effort of mind. If, therefore, Holy Scripture, providing for our need, ever putting before us what is intangible, clothes it in flesh, does it not make an image of what is thus invested with our nature, and brought to the level of our desires, yet invisible? A certain conception through the senses thus takes place in the brain, which was not there before, and is transmitted to the judicial faculty, and added to the mental store. Gregory, who is so eloquent about God, says that the mind, which is set upon getting beyond corporeal things, , is incapable of doing it. For the invisible things of God since the creation of the world are made visible through images. We see images in creation which remind us faintly of God, as when, for instance, we speak of the holy and adorable Trinity, imaged by the sun, or light, or burning rays, or by a running fountain, or a full river, or by the mind, speech, or the spirit within us, or by a rose tree, or a sprouting flower, or a sweet fragrance.
Again, an image is expressive of something in the future, mystically shadowing forth what is to happen. For instance, the ark represents the image of Our Lady, Mother of God, so does the staff and the earthen jar. The serpent brings before us Him who vanquished on the Cross the bite of the original serpent; the sea, -water, and the cloud the grace of baptism.

Again, things which have taken place are expressed by images for the remembrance either of a wonder, or an honour, or dishonour, or good or evil, to help those who look upon it in after times that we may avoid evils and imitate goodness. It is of two kinds, the written image in books, as when God had the law inscribed on tablets, and when He enjoined that the lives of holy men should be recorded and sensible memorials be preserved in remembrance; as, for instance, the earthen jar and the staff in the ark. So now we preserve in writing the images and the good deeds of the past. Either, therefore, take away images altogether and be out of harmony with God ,who made these regulations, or receive them with the language and in the manner which befits them. In speaking of the manner let us go into the question of worship.

Worship is the symbol of veneration and of honour. Let us understand that there are different degrees of worship. First of all the worship of latreia, which we show to God, who alone by nature is worthy of worship. When, for the sake of God who is worshipful by nature, we honour His saints and servants, as Josue and Daniel worshipped an angel, and David His holy places, when be savs, "Let us go to the place where His feet have stood." Again, in His tabernacles, as when all the people of Israel adored in the tent, and standing round the temple in Jerusalem, fixing their gaze upon it from all sides, and worshipping from that day to this, or in the rulers established by Him, as Jacob rendered homage to Esau, his elder brother, and to Pharaoh, the divinely established ruler. Joseph was worshipped bv his brothers. I am aware that worship was based on honour, as in the case of Abraham and the sons of Emmor. Either, then, do awav with worship, or receive it altogether according to its proper measure.

Answer me this question. Is there only one God? You answer, "Yes, there is only one Law-giver." Why, then, does He command contrary things? The cherubim are not outside of creation; why, then, does He allow cherubim carved by the hand of man to overshadow the mercy-scat? Is it not evident that as it is impossible to make an image of God, who is uncircumscribed and impassible, or of one like to God, creation should not be worshipped as God. He allows the image of the cherubim who are circumscribed, and prostrate in adoration before the divine throne, to be made, and thus prostrate to overshadow the mercy-seat. It was fitting that the image of the heavenly choirs should overshadow the divine mysteries. Would you say that the ark and staff and mercy-scat were not made? Are they not produced by the hand of man? Are they not due to what you call contemptible matter? What was the tabernacle itself? Was it not an image? Was it not a type and a figure? Hence the holy Apostle's words concerning the observances of the law, "Who serve unto the example and shadow, of heavenly things." As it was answered to Moses, when he was to finish the tabernacle: "See" (He says), "that thou make all things according to the pattern which was shown thee on the Mount." But the law ,-,,as not an image. It shrouded the image. In the words of the same Apostle, the law, contains the shadow of the goods to come, not the image of those things. For if the law should forbid images, and vet be itself a forerunner of images, what should we say? If the tabernacle 'was a figure, and the type of a type, why does the law not prohibit image-making? But this is not in the least the case. There is a time for everything.

Of old, God the incorporeal and uncircumscribed was never depicted. Now, however, when God is seen clothed in flesh, and conversing with men, I make an image of the God whom I see. I do not worship matter, I worship the God of matter, who became matter for my sake, and deigned to inhabit matter, who worked out my salvation through matter. I will not cease from honouring that matter which works my salvation. I venerate it, though not as God. How could God be born out of lifeless things? And if God's body is God by union, it is immutable. The nature of God remains the same as before, the flesh created in time is quickened by, a logical and reasoning soul.

I honour all matter besides, and venerate it. Through it, filled, as it were, me. Was not the with a divine power and grace, my salvation has come to thrice happy and thrice blessed wood of the Cross matter? Was not the sacred and holy mountain of Calvary matter? What of the life-giving rock, the Holy Sepulchre, the source of our resurrection: was it not matter? Is not the most holy book of the Gospels matter? Is not the blessed table matter which gives us the Bread of Life' Are not the gold and silver matter, out of which crosses and altar-plate and chalices are made? And before all these things, is not the body and blood of our Lord matter? Either do away with the veneration and worship due to all these things, or submit to the tradition of the Church in the worship of images, honouring God and His friends, and following in this the grace of the Holv Spirit."

from St. John Damascene On Holy Images, trans. by Mary H. Allies (London, Thomas Baker, 1898), pp. 10-17.


I went to a protestant Bible School for awhile to study theology, and when a group of classmates came over to my place to study for an exam, they were all horrified when they saw all the icons I had. These were supposedly 'my brothers in Christ'. I'm not kidding. I had these beautiful works of art hanging in my study and they were accusing me of 'idol worship' and that 'you should take those blasphemous things down'. One even said I should burn them. Needless to say, that was one of the things that began sparking my disillusionment with the evangelical church. Assuming I was praying in that room, what right do you have to tell me how to worship? I pray to the same Jesus you do, so what if I choose to do it differently? My response to that incident was a long polemic in their defense that I presented to my uncomfortable class.

.....Sorry for the rant, but ever since that time I've always felt the need to defend the use of icons.

Click to view attachment

It is your right to use icons and I would have not gone in shock horror if I was among your classmates. They made a mistake. Your disillusionment is with people who consider what you do is a sin but forget we are all sinners. Hope you understand though that for me to use icons or idols in worship is something I feel God abhors so will not and cannot. To each their own as long as we do not judge each other.

well im catholic and also mexican i say this because i think that all catholics from deferent backgruonds treat mary and jesus diferent so i only know how catholics that are mexican treat them.honestly to me their treated the same.sometimes it seams that the virgin mary is more um loved for a matter of speak,i mean when something goes wrong in a mexican household right away a candle is lit for her also for juses and for saints,
but i think atleast for mexican catholics shes more liked.

That is true FRANCO, La Virgin and Los Santos take great importance among Mexicans. So do velas. Many as well believe in Curanderos, at least in Texas, which has nothing to do with Catholicism but is well blended within.

The word "worship" is NOT as restricted to God alone as many Christians seem to believe.

For just one example, in the OLD Anglican/Episcopalian marriage ceremony, Christian to the soles of its feet, and still in favor with many Traditionalists, the bride promises the groom that "I will worship thee with my body."

Does anybody believe that the wife is telling her husband that he is Jehovah?

Has it ever occurred to you that had Jesus lived a century ago rather than 2,000 we'd have all sorts of photographic snapshots of Jesus and the gang? Would it be forbidden to look at 'em?

P. S. "Catholics as well as Christians" sets up a false dichotomy, since Catholics are Christians. It's like saying "Baptists and Christians" or "Presbyterians and Christians."

CLOVIS-"What I disagree with is that we should discard the Bible to follow god and goddess worship. Some can do that if they wish I will not tell them otherwise. But if someone says we should discard the Bible my view will state that those who believe in it have no problem sticking with it for it is every bit as valid today as it was yesterday. My inner voice can pray to the One True God and Him alone as stated in the Bible and His Spirit that dwells within affirms the Word."

RE-I dont think it should be discarded, I think the Bible is the greatest book on this earth. I just dont take it word for word. There are contradictions in the Bible and I feel there is a layout of deception that the 'dark force' with use. I struggle with the Old Testament, for it just seems to me that it is full of a Ego God. The inner voice I have has never shown a Ego side. It is patient, loving and is always humble.

CLOVIS-"On a historical level what sources do you have that claim Mary was into temple goddess worship? There are many who propose such theories but none based in actual historical sources. Mists of Avalon though is one of my favorite movies. Mary's lineage is presented in Luke BTW. There are some well known figures in that genealogy."

RE-This is mostly just my feelings. Before the birth of Jesus, we see yet another time of evolving faith. When I study things like Miriam, Sophia, Eve and Mary, I feel a bond between them. My inner voice didnt really start gleaming until I realized that every religion contained truth. To stick with one religion only limits the growth of the soul. I did read somewhere that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was also birthed through the Divine Spirit (a virgin birth). (Ill try to find where I read that)-To me, Temple worship is a left over practice of the demi-gods, women had to go to the Temple to conceive a child, usually with a demi-god, to keep the race long ago holding a somewhat immortal connection. They thought they were mating with the Divine, when truly it was the fallen. Even though the start of this was bad intentions, I feel that latter women tried to bring good intentions to the Temple. This was achieved, for Marys mother went to the Temple and asked for a child and an angle appearers to her and told her she would bear a child and devote this child to the second Temple of God. To me, this was just faith and God evolving together. The materiel second Temple was corrupt...Mary did devote herself to the learning of the Temple but was able to discern the truth for she was of the Divine herself.

RE-IDOLS-with respect to your opinion as well-our material world is a deception. Its ok to have things that we find beauty in or like to admire because it brings us a feeling of reflection, but the church, in my opinion , is not the place for these things. We must take off the blindfold, God is not material, he is energy. To me, the only thing that should be in a place of worship is a natural setting and space for the energy of God. My church is inside me, I am the Temple, we dont need the Holy of Holies anymore, for after Jesus, we became the Temple. People need a gathering place of nature, with no interferences of material things. What I am saying is that we dont NEED these statues and crosses in the Church, and a Church should have ONLY necessities, not decorations. The decorations is the natural wood and stone that it should be built from. Just my opinion of course-Just because the tree was made into the cross, doesnt mean the cross is something to be displayed in the church. Just because Mary was wonderful and brings us joy does not mean a statue of Mary should be in the Tabernacle of God. I cant think of anything of this earth besides things of nature that should be in the Tabernacle. We dont need the rituals anymore, we dont need the priests anymore, we just need to be humbled enough to seek through Jesus> I dont pray to Jesus, I pray through him. Big difference. The true ancient relation of God and Us has been lost, for it was only ORAL, not written. The Bible has truth, but also deception. God is a energy of light and sound. Everything that is is the same, we were made in the image of God and Gods holy family, fragments of light and sound. Our human mind cant fathom what HOLY really means, for this world is not Gods world. God intervened here, so that man would or could be saved. Since Jesus ascended, as the first firstfruits, babies have been born with the Holy Spirit within them, an automatic Temple. This was a process, God had to have us pave his highway for us to become this Temple for the Holy Spirit.

Sorry for the sloppy feedbacks on caopying others comments, a little new to how to post things of what others said in the nice little boxes

On this I generally agree. However, I don't think there are many Christian (by this, I mean Protestants) churches that actually have images of Jesus on the cross in their buildings. For Protestants, most believe that Jesus resurrected and came off the cross, and so if there is a cross, it is an empty one, to symbolise Jesus' victory over that horrible death. On a more personal level, there is no massive cross in my church. there is one on the top of the building, and a small one about a foot long attached to the speaker's podium, but that is about all, and as said, neither have Jesus depicted on it.

I'm not sure I necessarily agree with the sentiment that the more items are displayed, the more unholy it becomes. Stained-glass windows would be part of that display, and I wish my church had them, simply to admire the beauty. Our church is just a building. It's got a moveable stage, a basketball court painted on the floor, and chairs we pack up and set up before each service. Sometimes I wish for that old-time atmosphere that only the truly old churches can provide.

Could you explain what you mean by this? I'm not quite sure I follow what you're saying. The Bible was written before the Catholic Church ever decided Mary was to be given the title "Mother of God", and to be prayed to and respected. Thanks,

Thanks for the response, Franco. It surprised me, actually. You're the first catholic I've spoken to who says they are both worshipped. I suppose it does depend largely on where you live though, as you say. all the best,

Very good Clovis... I find it is more with the Catholics that place Mary upon high.....The Christians (like born agains) are to Jesus and Jesus only. I personally beleive in the Trinity.

I personally dont fing "wrong" in being thankful to her, and respect to her as the Mother who brought Jesus to the world from God, but I do not hold her on equal with Jesus. JMO

Exactly, it was at the Third Ecumenical Council 431. that the decision was taken to elevate Mary from woman to virtual diety .so there would hardly be any mention in the bible of the practice of praying to her and it was at First Ecumenical Council 325. that they condemned the Arian heresy that Jesus was not divine


fullywired

Yes -- and that emphasis my belief that "true Biblical Christianity" is a kind of endangered species, these days.
Since Constantine, "Christianity" has sort of evolved into many corporate businesses. Many of the largest corporations are self-sustaining; and many of the smaller corporations are "family businesses". ~~~ And I am "not" trying to be funny, writing this.

Comments, anyone?
Karlis

Ahh, thanks for the clarification So I guess that leads back to the orignal question I was asking - in practical application what is the difference between praying to Mary out of respect and praying to Jesus in worship. Is there one? I am trying to see how there is a difference, but so far I can't see anything (at least, not that can be backed up by with evidence) to suggest that praying to Mary is anything but worship.

Well your view is highly respected by me because it is presented in a way that does not attempt to destroy the Bible for others or discredit it. It simply states your personal take on it. The Old Testament is hard for me too at times but recently I have rediscovered some of the stories within that are about the wonderful characters and the stories of each of them are quite lovely.



Thank you again for being honest and I can certainly respect and understand your view that they are your feelings. Feelings and impressions to me are very important in my understanding of how and what others believe. I do not use it for myself in my approach to God but I have felt its impact in my view of the goddess before. It is a wonderful feeling.

In one place of temple worship a virgin was sent to the temple and she had to live there until a stranger, a male religious pilgrim, chose her for sex. Only then was she allowed to leave in accordance to the custom and for that ritual to be complete. I used to joke that someone not as attractive would have a long wait lol Placing this type of worship in context with Mary is quite fascinating and I have never heard someone do that before but it makes much sense in understanding the one who views Mary involved in worship of the goddess.

It is true many people view Mary as an extension of the goddess as well. By Sophia not sure if you meant one of the historical characters or if you mean Sophia, the Greek concept of wisdom, which also has been translated as the Jewish concept of Chokmah which is also of some relation to the separate concept of Shekinah. Many view Shekinah as the presence of God some even the Spirit. The Spirit itself for some is also of the goddess and the dove is a symbol that has represented some goddesses before. In the legends of Semiramis her parents abandoned her and she was fed by doves until she was found. At her death some say she turned into a dove so did not really die. Legend also states that at one of her temples a statue of her had a dove above her head. Very close to the modern imagery that is supposed to represent the Spirit. Doves are also associated with Ishtar and other goddesses.

It is important for some believers such as myself we do not get caught up into the imagery and confer any imagery to biblical concepts. For me it is important I understand it to not only grown in knowledge but also to separate what is biblical to what has been ascribed to it by others outside and attempt to fuse together with it.

Here is an excerpt from a book within my collection delving farther into these concepts though I do not agree with all the conclusion made and do know the author had a primary goal and bias of disproving religion in general and Christ specifically:



Robertson, J.M. "Pagan Christs" Barnes and Noble Books, 1993 p 22-23

As far as the feeling one can find in Mary and her connection to the goddess here is a poem I wrote a while back that attempts to capture a small piece of that.

Mary's Mystique

my ancient princess
i search for you
in a thousand books
all except mystique eludes

i see you take trace
like the devil in the tile
in patterns that take shape
you of many titles

where are you antiquity?
inconclusive are clues
in scrolls and manuscript
all except mystique eludes



Very beautiful words and I also find no need for rituals for the Bible also tells us to do none as some think of them. God is definitely not material and is energy. This is wonderfully illustrated in Isaiah 44 starting at verse 9. I do not even consider the symbol of the plain Latin cross necessarily as holy. I do at times wear a silver necklace with a small cross charm as it is a symbol that I can identify with which what symbols should be for but the symbol itself is nothing special or definitive beyond that to me personally. The Holy of Holies is no more indeed for the temple is within.

I do not agree that the Bible is corrupt though or contains a hidden or visible template of darkness that can corrupt the soul. I do not necessarily agree that the true ancient religion has been lost. Instead from the very beginning those who had no interest in becoming true devotees to God through the Spirit have hijacked the truth for their own design. They never had the true religion, which is not ancient but very living within people today as then, but continuously some have had darkness within themselves and thus chose certain parts of the Bible while ignoring others in the pursuance of their own agenda. Many thus see the Bible as dark because of those who claimed to represent it were the true darkness. Just my opinion and not trying to disabuse you of yours in any fashion.

It is also true that we cannot possess true holiness in the sense of if we were to be placed in the 'whole' presence of God we would simply die. Our flesh and other impurities would simply not be able to withstand such purity and Light. We can set ourselves apart though and become holy in that sense but even so it is not a reflection of us or something we should brag about or consider ourselves better than others for that glory that makes us even holy in that sense is not of us but from God.



This is my sentiment exactly. If anything honor for Mary would be something similar to the honor I have for my own mothers or even my friend's mother. Also as a historical figure and being the birth mother of Jesus it does make her a fascinating character. In personal practice as of now though I cannot confer any high praise, veneration, attempts to have her mediate for me or soothe me, or worship on her.



This is true. The official title of Theotokos was conferred to Mary a the Council of Ephesus which was held in the Church of Mary in Ephesus. In Latin Theotokos means 'Godbearer' and the concept in Latin was translated as Dei gentrix. Another phrase is Mater Dei which means mother of God. None of these titles are found within the Bible and are all extrabiblical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_%28mothe...Jesus%29#Titles

Here is a link that briefly touches some of the archaeological findings. Of note that the site was also part of Hadrian's imperial cult before it was dedicated to Mary.

http://www.oeai.at/eng/ausland/marienk.html

The worship of Mary is quite understandable, if you take into account the pagan origins of some of the early christian faith. The Romans, when they took over an area would not outlaw the dieties of that area, they would augement them into the patheon of Roman dieties and erect temples for all. After the Roman empire was forced to become christian, quite a bit of the old pagan beliefs found there way into the Holy Roman Church. One of those things was Goddess worship. The story of the birth of Jesus, gave people who already worshipped female dieties an outlet for thier faith, in Mary. They even called her "the Queen of Heaven", which was a name given to the Great Goddess. This was even more solidified when Roman christianity reached the British Isles, same thing there, they found an outlet for Goddess worship in the mother of Jesus as Goddess. It was never really stamped out (pagan Goddess worship) so much as transmuted into a form that didn't get its followers killed for heresy. Down through the ages Mary has remained quite popular and has become in some cases a manifestation of a miracle all on her own, with no visions etc of her son in sight. Look at Latin America, and the Virgin de Guadalupe, this is again the transfer of local pagan beliefs onto a "safe" diety that people of Latin America can worship a Goddess in Mary...

now how many posts have you called people wrong ??

yes - I think she was replacing the feminine -

not to mention those people where there is some sort of evidence of being healed ? Catholic shrines devoted to those who have claimed to have had visions of Mary. where medical proof before and after has to be presented before the church. a multitude of doctor reports as well as things like spontaneous remission taken into consideration .

I don't see any more strict in other christian sects yet don't come up with the proof when asked for it. even here. scan doctor reports before and after. news clippings ect.....

This is quite true and indeed many within Mexico only converted after Juan Diego saw the apparition of Mary. A momentous occasion in history that has changed its course drastically. By her coming in this form has done more towards converting the indigenous than all Spanish efforts before which only sought to destroy the pagan beliefs through destruction of the codices and edifices that were dedicated to the previous worship. Not that Aztecs were the only tribe in Mexico or that their belief system was the only one for there were many and even today various indigenous languages are spoken. But many do believe the Virgin Mary took on the role of the Aztec goddess Tonantzin. She was a mother goddess and goddess of the moon and these two archetypes have time and time again for many cultures not only been replaced by forms of the cult of Mary but some even see the goddess herself within Mary. Quite interesting through and through.

I hadn't sounded off on why Catholics pray to Mary; well here goes. This is a document written by the trappist monk Thomas Merton, and his view on the subject:

Why Catholics Pray To Mary



This is often forgotten by Catholics themselves, and therefore it is not surprising that those who are not Catholic often have a completely wrong conception of Catholic devotion to the Mother of God. They imagine, and sometimes we can understand their reasons for doing so, that Catholics treat the Blessed Virgin as an almost divine being in her own right, as if she had some glory, some power, some majesty of her own that placed her on a level with Christ Himself. They regard the Assumption of Mary into heaven as a kind of apotheosis placed in the Redemption would seem to be equal to that of her Son. But this is all completely contrary to the true mind of the Catholic Church. It forgets that Mary's chief glory is in her nothingness, in the fact of being the "Handmaid of the Lord," as one who in becoming the Mother of God acted simply in loving submission to His command, in the pure obedience of faith. She is blessed not because of some mythical pseudo-divine prerogative, but in all her human and womanly limitations as one who has believed. It is the faith and the fidelity of this humble handmaid, "full of grace" that enables her to be the perfect instrument of God, and nothing else but His instrument. The work that was done in her purely the work of God. "He that is mighty hath done great things in me." The glory of Mary is purely and simply the glory of God in her. and she, like anyone else, can say that she has nothing that she has not received from Him through Christ.



As a matter of fact, this is precisely her greatest glory: that having nothing of her own, retaining nothing of a "self" that could glory in any- thing for her own sake, she placed no obstacle to the mercy of God and in no way resisted His love and His will. Hence she received more from Him than any other saint. he was able to accomplish His will perfectly in her, and His liberty was in no way hindered or turned from its purpose by the presence of an egotistical self in Mary. She was and is in the highest sense a person precisely because, being "immaculate," she was free from every taint of selfishness that might obscure God's light in her being. She was then a freedom that obeyed Him perfectly and in this obedience found the fulfill- ment of perfect love.



The genuine significance of Catholic devotion to Mary is to be seen in the light of the Incarnation itself. The Church cannot separate the Son and the Mother. Because the Church conceived of the Incarnation as God's descent into flesh and into time, and His great gift of Himself to His creatures, she also believes that the one who was closest to Him in this great mystery was the one who participated most perfectly in the gift. When a room is heated by an open flame, surely there is nothing strange in the fact that those who stand closest to the fireplace are the ones who are warmest. And when God comes into the world through the instrumentality of one of His servants, then there is nothing surprising about the fact that His chosen instrument should have the greatest and most intimate share in the divine gift.



Mary, who was empty of all egotism, free from all sin, was as pure as the glass of a very clean window that has no other function than to admit the light of the sun (Son). If we rejoice in that light, we implicitly praise the cleanness of the window. And of course it might be argued that in such a case we might well forget the window altogether. This is true. And yet the Son of God, in emptying Himself of His majestic power, having become a child, abandoning Himself in complete dependence to the loving care of a human Mother, in a certain sense draws our attention once again to her. The Light has wished to remind us of the window, because He is grateful to her and because He has an infinitely tender love, it is certainly a great grace and a privilege, and one of the most important aspects of this privilege is that it enables us to some extent to appreciate the mystery of God's great love and respect for His creatures.



That God should assume Mary into heaven is not just a glorification of a "Mother Goddess." Quite the contrary, it is the expression of the divine love for humanity, and a very special manifestation of God's respect for His creatures, His desire to do honor to the beings He has made in His own image, and most particularly His respect for the body which was destined to be the temple of His glory. If Mary is believed to be assumed into heaven, it is because we too are one day, by the grace of God, to dwell where she is. If human nature is glorified in her, it is because God desires it to be glorified in us too, and it is for this reason that His Son, taking flesh, came into the world.



In all the great mystery of Mary, then, one thing remains most clear: that of herself she is nothing, and that God has for our sakes delighted to manifest His glory and His love in her.



It is because she is, of all the saints, the most perfectly poor and the most perfectly hidden, the one who has absolutely nothing whatever that she attempts to possess as her own, that she can most fully communicate to the rest of us the grace of the infinitely selfless God. And we will most truly possess Him when we have emptied ourselves and become poor and hidden as she is, resembling Him by resembling her.



And all our sanctity depends on her maternal love. The ones she desires to share the joy of her own poverty and simplicity, the ones whom she wills to be hidden as she is hidden, are the ones who share her closeness to God.



By: Thomas Merton



-Now in regards to my own opinion, it does seem to me that they view Mary as a sort of intermediary. Now I have the utmost respect for Catholics, and as I noted earlier I actually like going to Catholic church services better than protestant ones. But I do not agree with praying to Mary, or any of the saints for that matter. Yes, all of them, from Mary to Augustine, to hopefully Mother Theresa, the saints should be prominent, honored and exonerated for their service to the faith. So I have no problem with churches being named after saints, or seeing their pictures or statues at them, I'm glad I do. But that is where it ends for me. We don't need intermediaries to get to Jesus or God. I don't need to pray to the patron saint of lost causes because I feel I'm in a hopeless situation and I want him to intervene on my behalf. I go to Jesus. I have no problem saying a Hail Mary; because I feel its honoring her. But I would never pray TO her. Only to God. Its the same thing with going to Confession. Now I like the symbolism of it too, as in, you are confessing your sin to a brother in Christ, and that is an excellent step in the way of repentance, but in my view, in no way are you forgiven a sin by another man. The only way to erase vile deeds or thoughts is to go directly to God for forgiveness, and turn from the action to absolve your karma. A priest saying you are forgiven is not enough.

Flaws aside I love the Catholic church, and I deeply respect all their views and traditions, but I just think the only one we need to be praying to is God Himself. That is what the Bible says. No one, not man, nor priest, nor Mary, nor saint should be expected to answer prayers, nor intercede on your behalf. I think they would actually be deeply disturbed by us praying to them.

In closing, there has been debate as to where "Mother of God" came from and things like this. Well, we all have our differing interpretations of what the Bible actually means, and its all called theology. But what is theology? None of it is truly irrefutable, neither are any of the opposing views necessarily correct or incorrect. The doctrine of opinion, nothing more. John Calvin and Thomas Aquinas are polar opposites, but both of them are considered towering figures in the field. So who is right? Are any of them? What is the point of debating over table scraps? Theology is merely man's feeble attempt to understand a transcendent God; and is the equivalent of a mosquito flying around in space, trying to grasp it all. Our aim should not be to pour over theological doctrines by the Catholics, the Protestants, or anyone else; but to experience a deep, mystical union with God. Clear all of your thoughts, calm your heart and mind, put the ego aside, and come to God, let Him work through you. I guarantee through methods like this you will learn more about God than you could in any theological work, or any church.

your welcome

You leave me extremely confused. How can Paul have come "later" than the New Testament when his epistles and activities are very much a part OF the New Testament? And Paul died a mere 31 years after Christ's Crucifixion.

And whether or not Christ's followers had yet decided that He was Divine, He had already proclaimed it!. To wit:

"Before Elijah was, I AM."

"He who has seen Me has seen the Father."

They make valid points when they refer to Pauline Christianity but some say it as if it were a dirty word or in a disparaging tone. Not saying this about fullywired though. It is a thought that is of modern conception but that does not take away any of its validity since modern scholarship has developed many new thoughts. Biblical scholars claim to see radical differences between the Gospels and Paul's writings. I see their point somehow but I also see how the New Testament as a whole and the Old Testament all come together neatly to form the core of our faith and without one component it would drastically change all of the faith. Imagine Christianity without the Decalogue (10 Commandments) or without the love that Jesus preached or without the Spirit that Paul emphasized? I am generalizing because there are other facets within each of those three and the OT has many components within itself but Moses is a big part of it all to the general reader.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Christianity

I like that!

• Jesus did not talk about the atonement and that this innovation came from Paul of Tarsus. It is to Paul that Christianity should trace its roots. The origins of Christianity as we know it came, not from Jesus, but from Paul.
• The leadership and importance of James, brother of Jesus, was suppressed by the developing Gentile Church but it is through James that we would most likely be able to trace the original teachings of the earthly Jesus.
• The original followers, the successor to James and the apostles of Jesus (whether they number twelve or not), were the Jewish Christians (called Nazarenes and Ebionites), who never preached of a heavenly divine Jesus. They fought Pauline Christianity to the end of their days.

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/paulorigin.html#conclusions


fullywired

I read that as bordering on "I take everything in the bible literally and nothing outside of it is truth." Fullywired's post that you were answering makes sense to me. I don't see why you'd need a book to tell you that a mother and son are close and know things about one another only a mother and child would.

As a Christian, I do see the Bible as truth. I don't necessarily take it all literally (poetry, imagery, symbolism), but I do take it all as true. I'm not saying that mothers and sons are not close nor am I saying you need a Bible to tell you that. And I did understand what fullywired was trying to say. But what I'm trying to understand is how Jesus and Mary are treated differently. So far, I can't say that I have seen evidence that they have been treated differently. Considering this, is it any wonder that Protestants say that catholics worship Mary????

To protestants, Mary gave birth to Jesus, but that was all. She was not the "Mother of God" (the feminine opposite of God - that just stirs thoughts of divinity of Mary), just the mother of Jesus on earth. She was not perfect, not sinless. Favoured, yes. Sinless, no. It is a Catholic tradition taht states she was sinless. The Catholics claim otherwise. If Catholics believe the Bible, then Jesus is the intercessor. But if they believe the Church, then Mary intercedes to Jesus. Or if they believe both, we have the convoluted concept that we pray to Mary, who intercedes for us to Jesus, who then goes to intercede for us with God. The official Catholic stance would of course agree with this view but highlight that the Traditions of the Church are just as important as the words of the Bible - a point Protestants argue against and was one of the primary factors in the Reformation.

At this point in the discussion, I as a Protestant feel justified in saying to a Catholic that they worship Mary, because no one has shown that Mary and Jesus are treated any differently (indeed one Catholic who posted agreed wholeheartedly, actually putting Mary as more important than Jesus - though this was probably cultural thing for him). That said, with such an issue as this, it is hard to "generalise' all Catholics in this way. Not all Catholics agree with all Church doctrines or traditions. Some would be almost protestant in their views, while some go the other extreme. I'm speaking primarily here of the official Catholic stance on this issue.

Just a few thoughts to consider.

That is true, Paul was the most influential figure in early Christianity. But I honnestly don't see why there is all this criticism leveled against him. Here is his own take on all these divisions:
(1 Cor 1:10-18)

I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas[a]"; still another, "I follow Christ."

Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into[b] the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Also, much credibility must be given to Paul, as history suggests, he was actually a persecuter of Christians. Initially, he despised the entire movement. It is even written he committed a stoning. Yet he underwent a RADICAL conversion experience and did a complete 180. For something like that to happen he truly must have had a mystical experience. An enemy becomes the greatest champion of the faith? That just doesn't add up well, unless something pretty significant brought about this life change. And I wouldn't go so far as to say Paul suppressed James. He felt his mission was to preach to the Gentiles, to INCLUDE them. This sparked what would ultimately led to the conversion of Rome. Can you imagine what would have happened if they'd ONLY preached to the Jews? I doubt Christianity would have even survived had Paul not sought the gentile.

That's certainly the story as I learned it in two different Christian religious traditions. "Had Paul not preached to the Gentiles we'd yet be in our sins."

I am not exactly a catholic, more of a christian with a very mixed religious background ( anglican, orthdox & catholic). However, I would like to try to reply to your questions. Mother Mary is held in special esteem also by the orthodox churchs, as well as catholic. In both churches she is honored and revered as the mother of God. You said in a later post that :



I fully agree with you that she is not the feminine opposite of God, but she was the mother of God. The Word became incarnate in her body. When saying that she was 'just the mother of Jesus on earth' one must be careful not to split the nature of Christ. If she bore & gave birth only to the body of baby Jesus - all human without his divine nature - then when did both nature's unite? Also, how could the gospel of John say :" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God....And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us"..(John 1: 1 & 14). God became incarnate in her womb. In the OT the Ark of the Covenant was regarded as holy , not as just a wooden box containing 2 stone tablets. It was the presence of God that sanctified the Ark, the tabernacle etc. If our bodies, according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, are a holy temple of God because the Holy Spirit dwells in us, then how much so where God became flesh? All that does not make her divine, but certainly she is not just any other woman, like me,my mother, or any other mother, nor is she only ' just favored'.

Another point is the commandment of 'honor your father & mother', I would assume that Jesus also upheld this commandment and honored his mother. His first miracle in the wedding of Cana was performed according to her request, when she noticed the predicament of the family running out of wine; even though Jesus' first response was 'my hour is not yet come'. However, I do not take her intercession in the sense of what was denoted in some posts, that Mary stands between us & Jesus, we make our requests to her & she passes them on to Jesus ( sounds like a well oiled bureaucracy, not how I envision heaven)! In any protestant congregation, people will pray for those members who are in need of prayers for whatever reason. In all christian traditions, we all pray for friends and family who are in need, so what makes the mother of God praying for us so different & so unacceptable? My personal belief is that Mary adopted all mankind when she became the mother of Jesus, and that there is something so touching in the blessings & prayers made by parents on behalf of their children like the old patriarchs in the OT. I do not mean by that any 'mother goddess' thing, but rather more like a god-mother .

My last point to add is about the apparitions of Mary to crowds of people all over the world. Her message has always been to urge people to pray, to God, to Jesus, not to herself. In case these apparitions are dismissed as mass hysteria, I would like to draw your attention to her apparition in a predominantly muslim country, egypt, where thousands of christians & muslims saw her all at the same time. As a matter of fact she was first seen by 2 muslim men

The government suspecting that someone might be using projectors to fool the people, regularly cut off the electricity from the whole suburb, but the apparitions still continued. Here is the official church (orthodox) statement http://indefenseofthecross.com/zeitoun_egypt.htm. I think that it is fair to say that there is something very special about Mary. We cannot dismiss her as just another woman, nor can I judge those who honor her, or accuse them of idolatry. I do not believe I am,nor anyone other than God, qualified to make such a judgment . Being a 'cross breed' of different churches, I have unfortunately heard ,much too often, the dismissal of one church by another. Jesus had 12 disciples, each with his own character had a different view of the same Jesus. Why not extend this to the different denominations & accept that it is all about different interpretations, different points of view, but judgment is only for God?

Below are 2 quotations from a Catholic site explaining their point of view.

. http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Mother_of_God.asp

-
http://www.catholic.com/library/Saint_Worship.asp

You have skipped over a step here. People pray to Mary.

When you pray for others do you pray to Mary? It is unbiblical to do so. The bible tells us to pray to God only. It doesn't even say if Mary or other 'saints' people like to pray to can even hear us. So then knowing this I find it personally wrong and unacceptable.

catholicism is a religion where if you dont give your money to the curch you go to hell!

Here is how Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word pray "



Therefore in answer to your question, we ASK Mary to pray (worship God) with us, for us, & for those who are in need. We do not worship Mary.

It is very 'biblical' to pray (ask in adoration God & Jesus) for others. Several miracles were performed by Jesus upon the request of third parties. As a matter of fact, Jesus clearly stated that the faith of the third party, which is asking for his miracle, was a decisive factor; see Matt 8:13,Matt 15:28,& Matt 17:19-20. In that last case, it was the 'unbelief' of the disciples which made them fail in curing the possessed young man. If the intercession in prayer for others was unacceptable to Jesus, he would not have accorded it such importance, nor would he have accepted it to start with. "And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him....The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects." Jas. 5:15-16. Wouldn't you agree that Mary qualifies even as 'righteous'?

As for Mary and the saints not hearing , I can only cite Matt. 22:32 "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." Also 1 Corinthians 13:12 "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." Why would the 'living' who are abiding with God, who can see & know more than during their life, be incapable of hearing us? When Jesus warned about despising the little ones, he clearly said that their angels do 'always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven', there is no impenetrable wall between us & heaven.



I think I should repeat what you first stated in your post, "you skipped a step here". I do not believe that you KNOW, you only have an interpretation with which you are personally comfortable, and that is your own right; but neither you, nor I ,nor any human being, possess the credentials to claim the knowledge you believe you have. This falls squarely in God's domain. We only have our interpretations. I would hesitate to condemn hundreds of millions, catholic & orthodox, to accuse them of idolatry or of not having good enough standards of christianity. Let him who is without sin be the first to cast a stone. I can neither cast a stone nor presume to judge others; "Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." ( Matt 7:1-2) Or as James put it more bluntly :

Christians should be moving towards unifying the Church, by that I mean the Universal Church, the Body of Christ, Catholic, Orthodox,Protestant..., not to fracture it more. We should be more accepting of our differences and less strident in pointing fingers at each other.

You went through all the trouble of looking up the word 'pray' yet still you are reserved in using it. Let's call a spade a spade here and stop skirting around it. You pray to Mary.



I never said praying for others is wrong. Your last statement is ridiculous. People weren't praying to Abraham, or David, etc. and they were righteous men weren't they? I have never said anything bad about Mary. I think she is a great woman but still she prays to Jesus as she has sin also.