Mother Angelica Rocks Marian Apologetics

I am watching a rerun of EWTN's "Journey Home" 4th anniversary show, where Marcus Grodi and his network CEO Mother Angelica are talking spirituality, about 20 minutes in, Mother pours out an epic take on our holding of Mary, Mother of God (transcribed from the show itself):


Marcus (MG) : "Protestants say 'Why do you worship Mary, why do you pray to Mary rather than Jesus?"

Mother Angelica (MA) : "Well the misunderstanding is we dont worship Mary. We can only worship God, our Lady herself can only worship God. The problem is twofold, its human and its satanic (read "Enemy"). I am not blaming anyone who doesn't believe in Mary, as having a problem with the 'Enemy'. But I think he (God) does inspire us with common sense instead of spiritual sense. Our Lord himself says in the Commandments 'you have to honor your mother and your father'. When we speak of God and then we speak of the Father, designing that his eternal word would become man, he had to create someone special. Specially beautiful and Holy, not only without sin at conception. (Pause)

This is what amazes me....how could anyone think, that even for a split instant, the Son of God would be in possession of his Enemy?

That just doesn't make any sense to say that the birth of our Lady was natural. (to say) Its really Josephs son, etc.... Because we don't understand how it happened, we say it didn't happen.

But that's a lack of humility on our part. You cant know and understand God. So when you say (Mary was not free from sin) you're accusing God of not following his own Commandments, He honored his Mother.

And they (Protestants) always bring up the Wedding at Cana, it always burns me up. (MG laughs) 'Whats is it to you and to me'...ok...well...he asked her to say fiat to his coming. We don't think of what might have happened if she said no. Her fiat brought him, and it was her fiat that had to begin His 3 years of Miracles and Ministry. That's why he said to her :

'What is it to you in me?'

In other words, (Jesus said) 'You're going to start my Passion, you're going to begin now, you know what you are doing?...you're going to begin my public ministry...you brought me here, and now you are going to begin' So what is it? He wasn't correcting her, he was reminding her what is it. She knew immediately, she responded as always 'Do whatever He tells you'. Otherwise it don't make any sense. If I say 'What is that to you?' you would have to say what it is. See...and that's why we have to love our Lady.......remember she stood at the foot of the Cross.

...so she began, she said fiat, she said 'Do whatever he tells you.' She stood, STOOD...now that word stood is not just another word indicating a position, it indicated her own position as Mother of God which means she too added her terrible pain with her Son. And St. Paul says that, every good Protestant knows that..." (end of transcript)

The pure logic of the scripture, to refute the virginity and sinless purity of Mary would be agreeing that the Son of God was in possession of his Enemy, and in violation of his own Commandment "Honor thy Mother..."

Immaculate evidence indeed.

Christs "Family"...a Calvinist perspective

The a-C writes a position as follows which I post here in fairness, exactly as he wrote it and with no response from me yet. While I do what he proposes, and take my time to consider and examine this perspective, I ask the readers to do the same and feel free to comment in advance of a formal response by me. Combox is wide open.

(a-C writes)
I put a lot of time into this, take your time and chew on it

Mary’s Christocentric biblical position…I am sorry, but that is such and incredible attribute to esteem to someone. Is she the only one that has this attribute? Are there others who are Christocentric? Has this same quality been identified in others. I will explain the text of John as the author intended, above all you and I must agree that irrespective of anybodies thoughts on anything, we always go to the intent of the scripture and interpret what the writer conveyed and see how all of scripture establishes this. To say that John intended to convey that Mary is Christocentric is simply not there. If this is all it takes to establish such a doctrine, well then, employing such techniques renders the establishment of doctrine to be nearly limitless. Mary said to the servent, do what ever he says…that establishes something about Mary? I am not being cynical, this is a reality. You must agree with this! To take a mere conversation and exchange between Mary and some servents at a wedding and infer that this establishes anything about Mary is simply beyond me.

The purpose of John is

John 20:30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

Similarly, the opening renders its same objective

John 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

The reality is that John’s conveyance of the personification of onlys as they pertain to Jesus are innumerable and solely pointed to the Lord

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

The writer of John says his intent of writing is to convey that Jesus is God….that belief in Jesus Christ results in a supernatural Birth that is the only means of entering the Kingdom of God (this in and of itself refutes most all of papal doctrine about the means that Catholicism establishes…but I will ignore that for now, difficult as that is).

John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the word (logos in the greek mean word and is referring to the person of Jesus Christ) and the word was with God, and the word was God. He was in the beginning with God, all things that were made were made by him, and nothing that was made was made apart from him. Christ had no beginning, he had no mother who created him, he existed prior to the foundation of the World and made every single thing in the universe according to John.

Then he shows how John the Baptist was sent by God to be a messenger …… Jesus esteemed John above all other men (and women including Mary) when he said among man, there has never been one greater…this was the person that the Gospel writers revealed the quality that he must decrease and that his ministry was complete as he desired to see the Lord Jesus Christ alone magnified. That is the heart of the doctrine that equally refutes all this trash of praying to saints or Mary or dead popes or any such notion of anyone contributing to the work of Christ. It is singular!

The fact that Mary instructed the servents at the wedding is revealing about Mary. But look at the Lord’s response to her preceding, "Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come." Mary was anticipating something of the Lord, she knew that something was different, but she clearly did not understand how his ministry would play out. This is evidenced by the reality that none of her children, none of the Lord’s brothers and sisters believed in the Lord Jesus Christ until after his death! They did not understand. The author John also includes insight as to how ordinary the people thought Jesus was in that the knew how ordinary his family was. This rebuke evidences her involvement was so unconnected to the Lord, that she was rebuked for even speakin about the ability to perform miracles. his rebuking of her involvement in thinking that. John further makes it clear that the people were astounded that Jesus was able to do things as he did yet his father and his mother were astounded that his parents (and family for that matter, were extraordinarily ordinary John 6: 42 And they said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, 'I have come down from heaven'?" If John intended for something about Mary to be conveyed, wouldn’t the Lord have used this opportunity to demonstrate a Christocentric quality about Mary and let her perform the miracle apart from him?

Mary never performed any miracle, never spoke the gospel in the book of acts and never had any role at all subsequent to Jesus departure, never shared scripture with anyone, never was esteemed with teaching Jesus anything, never wrote any scripture (nor did any other woman). never was the object of the Jeruselum council in Acts 15, is not anywhere in the marriage feast of the lamb in Revelation, is not in any way to be deemed to be anything other than a sinner in need of God’s grace in the same way that you and I are. She is not mentioned anywhere in the epistles, no explanation about her supposed intercession, her co-redemtrix, or any such thing what so ever. My friend showed me the Catholic church bulletin and asked how a quote from Luke (I think, don’t have it in front of me) establishes a position about Mary. He read the scripture and said, this does not even speak to this subject. He has grown in biblical discernment as he has now the ability to explain how 8 consecutive chapters of Romans fits like a glove and is overwhelmed when he hears someone explain something with the contents of Romans that is completely outside any scope or intent of what the Holy Spirit spoke thru Paul. The same can be said about John’s Gospel. He stated his intent builds it, concludes with it, and clearly establishes it.

John not only does not esteem any such attribute to Mary, he continues to make it extraordinarily clear that Mary was earthly ordinary and following his departure made it clear that it was John’s responsibility to care for her after the Lord’s departure. John 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold your son!" That again reveals that the Lords appointment to John to care for his mother was a responsibility that was needed to be done and that the danger that those of the way of Christ faced was imminent. His brothers were not around, likely they were in fear for their lives and did not believe in Jesus at this point. Mary could not even care for herself such that the Lord charged Jesus with the need to care for him to which he did according to John 19:27 Then He said to the disciple, "Behold your mother!" And from that hour that disciple took her to his own [home.] as the Lord commanded him.

John did not in any way esteem Mary as Christocentric…In Fact that term is not even in the Bible as one might infer it to another person. To the contrary John portrayed her as a woman who was addressed in ordinary terms…woman what does this have to do with me…woman your son….she needed to be cared for, not prayed to at the hour of his death….John did not do any such thing. And to esteem that from these words is beyond incredulous of any person trying to teach such a quality…their condemnation is just.

If you would like to examine Luke’s writing I would be more than happy, first though you must answer the question…am I seen by you as faithfully conveying the biblical intent of John?

No Abdication here

Back to the a-C's request that I go line by line IE.:

"GO POINT BY POINT AND TELL ME THAT THIS IS NOT DISHONORNING AND AGAINST SCRIPTURES IN WHAT I SAID....WHAT BIBLICAL SUPPORT IS THERE FOR ANY OF THESE THINGS ………………………….. I WILL NOT IGNORE THEM…FULL OF GRACE IS ALL THAT YOU HAVE CONVEYED AND YOU HAVE FAILED TO ADDRESS STEPHEN OR JOHN THE BAPTIST…NONE HAVE BEEN IGNORED"

JP3 claimed that Mary was his savior when he was shot, his view of Mary is far and above that of simply a departed Saint, she was actively involved in his life and responsible for aspects of his life….She was responsible for his protection, she was responsible for saving his life….He wore her initials on his clothes and so on and so on.

First, his acronym is JP2 not 3.
Second, the fact that I wear a "Fender" logo on my shirt does not mean I worship Fender. It can be said, as you say above, JP2 is a big Fan of Mary. There is nothing in Canon prohibiting anyone, even Peter's successor, from having a tatoo of Mary on his forehead. It does not dishonor or disrespect, just as wearing a Fender shirt does not disrespect Fender.

What Catholics do with Mary is wrong…I don’t have to defend it against your definition of worship. The reality is that it is wrong. Wether you call them worship or not is ridiculous…to say that I don’t understand why Catholics do what -they do is ridiculous…but even more decieiving is to laugh and say….see,,,,,I told you this Is not worship is silly….what ever name you give these is blasphemous against scripture.

What we have discussed, on many occasions, must not have been clear enough. In our conversations your assumed emphasis on the attention Mary receives is far greater than the level of attention most practicing Catholics pay in real life. I nor any Catholic I know, including Priests, Deacons and Catechists dont walk around with a constant adoration and mental vision of Mary. Your emphasis greatly exagerates the proportional amount of attention Mary actually receives in the daily life of a Catholic in general in my experience. In fact, to try and convey this with absolute clarity, Mary is hardly mentioned in the Mass on a regular basis. Its all about Christ.

What Catholics do with Mary is engage her closeness to Christ. All aspects of Mary point to Christ. Everything about Mary is Christocentric. Look at the Wedding feast at Cana in John 3:5 she says "Do whatever He tells you". She said herself in the Gospel of Luke 1:46 "My soul magnifies the Lord".

Her singular role as virgin Mother is engaged via prayer to get results with Christ. JP2 must have gotten results with her engagement/intercession and advocates doing this by wearing her insignia. What is essentially important to address is a distinct difference between Worship and Honor that must be understood. When anyone prays to God, they attach "latria" to this communication. Latria is sacrificial in character, and may be offered only to God. Catholics offer other degrees of reverence to the Blessed Virgin Mary and to the Saints; these non-sacrificial types of reverence are called Hyperdulia and Dulia, respectively. Hyperdulia is essentially a heightened degree of dulia provided only to the Blessed Virgin. This distinction, written about as early as Augustine of Hippo and St Jerome, was detailed more explicitly by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae, A.D. 1270, II II, 84, 1: "Reverence is due to God on account of His Excellence, which is communicated to certain creatures not in equal measure, but according to a measure of proportion; and so the reverence which we pay to God, and which belongs to latria, differs from the reverence which we pay to certain excellent creatures; this belongs to dulia, and we shall speak of it further on (II II 103 3)"; in this next article St. Thomas Aquinas writes: "Wherefore dulia, which pays due service to a human lord, is a distinct virtue from latria, which pays due service to the Lordship of God. It is, moreover, a species of observance, because by observance we honor all those who excel in dignity, while dulia properly speaking is the reverence of servants for their master, dulia being the Greek for servitude." From St. Thomas it is apparent that a clear distinction exists among latria and forms of dulia within Catholic theology.

True practicing Catholics know the difference. When a non-Catholic attempts to blur the Worship radar screen with what he sees on the outside, not knowing what is on the inside of said Catholic, thats subterfuge.


We don’t need someone to intercede for us

We agree here. Essential it is not, however it is biblical as stated in Rev. 5:8, thus: "And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" There are accounts as the benefit of praying to Saints. One either accepts this or does not accept it. What one cannot do is read it, then ignore the content and twist it beyond its intent.

God does not need assistants to bring our requests to him

Even if he did, scripture does not distinguish assistants.

Scripture does as stated above and in Mark 12:26-27, your assertion of the term assistants is not relevant.

Full of Grace is used of other in scripture

Correct but not to the exclusion of Mary.

No one participated in our atonement NO ONE>>>>>>FOR HE MADE HIM WHO KNEW NO SIN TO BE SIN FOR US, THAT WE MIGHT BECOME THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD IN HIM

NOT IN THEM!

We don’t need one to pray for us at the hour of our death (at the instant of death believers go to heaven to be with the Lord (2 Thes) why do I need her to pray for me….

This is repetitive, the "need" may not be there, but the benefit is historically validated by thousands.

deceived Roman Catholics do not go to purgatory, they perish in hell eternally, Mary praying will be of no avail.

Scripture makes reference to Purgatory as a place of cleansing for those believers who are in Christs Grace but who are not sinless enough for admission through the narrow gate:

"Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny" (Matt. 5:25-26).

"Each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire" (1 Cor. 3:13-15).

These passages mark plainly the path which Purgation shall take place.

We don’t pray in vein repetition TO GOD OR TO ANYONE

You must be referring to Matthew 6:7–8. "And in praying do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him." Jesus says explicitly that we should not "heap up empty phrases." You may be aware that the word battalogeo is used only once in the New Testament: here in Matthew 6:7. It seems to be a word of special importance. It also can be translated "to babble on" or "to repeat endlessly." You would also logically ask if praying the Hail Mary is not a vain repetition.
Don't stop at the end of verse 8. In verse 9, Jesus says explicitly, "Pray then like this." He then goes on to teach us to pray the Lord’s Prayer (the Our Father). If Jesus was against standardized prayers, why did he give us one to pray? And I presume you would agree that he wanted us to pray this on many occasions.

In addition, not all repetition is vain. Consider the prayers spoken of in Revelation 4:8 offered day and night without ceasing: "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!" Another repetitious prayer pleasing to God is contained in Psalm 136: "For his steadfast love endures for ever." This phrase is repeated over twenty-five times. Finally, Matthew 26:44 tells us that Jesus himself prayed the same prayer three times in the garden in Gethsemane.

Statues and images of Mary are bowed down to around the world and prayers are offered to her directly...Idols are sold by the millions every year with her as a pendant on woman

It isnt that hard to come to an understanding that we mortal humans are limited in our expression of spirit. Showing reverence for any Holy symbolic statue, image or material thing when it is done with intent to acknowledge the supreme reverence of God is based in respect. One should have a compassionate and loving heart to comprehend that the things put in Gods House are for the purpose of glorifying Him.


Mary was a servant of God to bring about the fulfillment of our Mesiah…John the Baptist was declared to be above all other Men…let’s carve a statue to him and light candles and pray to him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! while were at it, think of the take if we make one’s for money boxes and kneeling to all the popes….Oh I guess my thoughts are old news…that is what the Vatican did

Now you're getting sarcastic...no comment.

Mary as Co-redemptrix

The a-C brought the "co-redeemer" question into play today, stating that JP II wrote official Church Doctrine stating such....which is not the case.

The concept "Co-redemptrix" has not been formally defined as a Marian dogma, although petitions for declaring it (along with Mediatrix) a dogma have been submitted to the pope by various Cardinals and bishops. It would become a fifth Marian dogma if approved by the Vatican.

The concept of Co-redemptrix refers to an indirect or unequal but important participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption. She gave free consent to give life to the redeemer, to share his life, to suffer with him under the cross and to sacrifice him for the sake of the redemption of humankind.

The Roman Catholic view of Co-redemptrix does not imply that Mary participates as equal part in the redemption of the human race, since Christ is the only redeemer . Mary herself needed redemption and was redeemed by Jesus Christ her son. Being redeemed by Christ, implies that she cannot be his equal part in the redemption process(1).

We (me included) have to be careful to fully research claims coming from incomplete definitions and outside of doctrine writings. I, in my limited comprehension dont have a problem seeing this as compatible with Sacred Scripture, as long as the terms indirect and unequal are stated clearly.

(1) See Wikipedia-"Co-redemptrix"

Hypocracy or Intentional Ignorance

I read a blog post comment today that rang my bell severely.

A while back, I was given a tract at a "Bible Church" that has 52 reasons the Catholic Church was a Cult. I cant seem to locate that tract now but a few things stuck with me enough that when I read this particular post comment it came back vividly.

Many of the "reasons" in that tract were way off, so far off Catholic doctrine and Scriptural Basis that I was dumbfounded. Something like this:

#37 - Catholics worship Mary = Idolatry - The Bible says thou shalt have but one God....blah, blah, blah..." you know the verse language, etc. etc.

Its one thing to outwardly oppose the doctrine of a given religion. Its a whole other thing to misrepresent that religion entirely. That's like me saying Mormons find polygamy acceptable today...basing my assertion on ancient Mormon history/rumor/hearsay, which is not today's Mormonism (as a general rule).

How audacious is it to proclaim a non-fact (Worship Mary) and then print it up and distribute it? What picture does that convey to anyone, once the facts are made known? It conveys intentional ignorance, that is, the Protestant wants to believe a lie in order to save some kind of face with their peers. There is nothing biblical about this kind of attack. The a-C says in doing this he is following scripture in leading Catholics to Christ...away from the false prophets of Catholicism. But he wont hear the correct facts to begin his effort.

That doesn't work, plain and simple. Let alone being a loving attempt at moving someone to his view, right or wrong. Loving approach, not attack is biblical.

Apologetics don't even enter this kind of situation. Its futile, to explain away a non fact is useless wind. Catholics don't worship Mary. End of story. Now, should you require an explanation of why Catholics pay so much attention to Mary, then see my first post....that's when Apologetics find a worthy use.

-Peace

An a-C response to Mary

I received a response from the a-C on my conversational points in the post "Mary and her place" below. His response is in CAPS. Enjoy. Peace.

Ave Maria

or better known as "Mary, Full of Grace". The a-C stated to me...."Where is there any reference in the Bible to Mary being full of grace" ...its just not there". I had to dig deep in reply...I know its there...I hear it at Mass every week...Hup! there it is:

One of many Bible sources of Mary's condition:
a-C,
- read Luke 1, vs. 26 through 38, specifically verse 28 as follows:" And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David: and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 Who having heard, was troubled at his saying and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. 31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father: and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. 33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end.34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?35 And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. 36 And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren. 37 Because no word shall be impossible with God. 38 And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord: be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her."

Interesting that you didnt know this a-C. The Devotion to Mary of the Universal Church is widely documented, and as to her intercessionary role and its biblical sources. Her position is further clarified in Revelation 12-1 through 6:" 1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars, 2 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth: and was in pain to be delivered........"Now a-C, objectively speaking, who do we know from the bible that fits this description? Is it not reasonable to tie this to John 19 where Christ on the Cross told his disciple "Behold they mother.." pointing at Mary? The Crown of 12 stars in Rev 12-2, what do they represent to you a-C? Not a statement, but a question of research.

The a-C then replies...
"This is revelation that indeed the Lord would come thru her…but to say that she is an intercessor is simply not there, there is no worship or otherwise…the Lord said I will share my Glory with no other…let alone a woman that he created

(Whoa....This is a huge statement...imagine the Chicken/Egg debate going on there...we will have to address this philosophical broadbrush at some point)

She declared that he was her Lord! (well...duh)

The NASB has the proper translation of the word which is used often, she declared herself to be his slave!

38 And Mary said, "Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her.

You would agree that the angel did not pray to her, nor worship her, nor did anyone any where in scripture…nor did Elizabeth become the object of worship or adiration…

When Jesus was on the Cross, he directed John that Mary was now to be taken care of by him…it was a directive to him as she was a widow and her children had not come to faith yet…

This really does not support anything to the notion that she is an intercessor and if she were, would she be mentioned in texts like Heb 4:14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. 16 Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

There is nothing in scripture about her intercession…"

My reply to this assertion...

a-C, you say and I quote"There is nothing in scripture about her intercession…"

I found reference in Romans: The doctrine of one Mediator, Christ, in no way excludes the invocation and intercession of saints. All merit indeed comes through Him; but this does not make it unlawful to ask our fellow-creatures, whether here on earth or already in heaven, to help us by their prayers. The same Apostle who insists so strongly on the sole mediatorship of Christ, earnestly begs the prayers of his brethren: "I beseech you, therefore, brethren, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the charity of the Holy Ghost, that you help me in your prayers for me to God" (Romans 15:30); and he himself prays for them: "I give thanks to my God in every remembrance of you, always in all my prayers making supplication for you all" (Phil., i, 3, 4). If the prayers of the brethren on earth do not derogate from the glory and dignity of the Mediator, Christ, neither do the prayers of the saints in heaven.

Romans is clear. "Supplication" or petitioning is clear. Just as if I asked you to pray for me Jim, that is valid intercession. So I would be diminishing what God did for us by asking you to intercede for me in prayer? The Bible states otherise.

This particluar conversation went offtrack with the a-C pointing at Romans passages that are interpreted by him to make broad attacks on our Catholic "rituals" which of course is avoiding getting to the bottom of the Mary position.

I asked the a-C to go get me a rebuttal...biblically based, not interpretive...that proves praying to Mary or Saints is ineffective as praying to "dead people". In 3 days no reply so far......

Mary and her place

Further conversation from me with the "anti-Catholic" (now called the a-C) when he professed the typical falsehood that "we" worship Mary...went like this... ( the a-C response is in CAPS)

"I imagined we were already beyond the false Protestant belief that Catholics "worship" and "Adore" Mary....I guess we need to go back there and clear that up first. The first thing we have to get beyond is that she is not just a dead person...that would mean she was an unjustified sinner and went to hell. If she entered into heaven, then the RCC goes with the following logic, these are my words:A DEAD PERSON OR ONE WHO HAS FALLEN ASLEEP HAS EITHER WENT TO BE IN THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST OR THEY ARE IN THE OUTER DARKNESS ENDURING ETERNAL SEPARATION FROM GOD The Roman Catholic rite does not hold Mary to any level higher than a Saint. SAINTS ARE THE ELECT OR CHOSEN OF GOD WHO HAVE BEEN BORN AGAIN…IF THEY ARE DEPARTED THEY DO NOT MANIFEST QUALITIES THAT GOD HAS, NOR ARE THEY WORTHY OF ANYHTING MORE THAN YOU AND I, Take my word for it. The volumes of Biblical callouts to the Blessed Mary in that vain do not allow or depict worship of Mary. Only that esteem which the Mother of God would naturally and logically be given is recognized. I DON’T THINK IT ACCURATE TO SAY THAT THE BIBLE SAYS WE ESTEEM MARY, GOD EXISTED AND WAS LONG BEFORE MARY BROGHT THE GOD MAN INTO HIS EARTHLY FORM…SO GOD DOES NOT HAVE A MOTHER IN THIS SENSE OF THE USE…JOHN 1;1 AND MANY INFERENCE THAT OUR LORD SAID, BEFORE ABRAHAM WAS, I AM That esteem or singular position, as there was only one Mother of God...(in contrast to multiple apostles cannonized into sainthood). So Mary's unique part in the reality of Jesus, and those passages which bestow her Divine communion with Jesus on earth and the hereafter give Mary posture that no other has ever had or will ever have, in the view of the Universal Church . SHE DID NOT RECEIVE ESTEEM FROM JESUS HIMSELF, HE ESTEEMED THE CHOSEN AND IDENTIFIED WITH THE BRETHREN, YE ARE MY MOTHER AND MY BROTHER AND SISTER…That logic was never hard for me to swallow. I dont see any worship or adoration of Mary practiced in my Church locally, in the 6 or so other RCC's I've been to in this area, or the Diocese Offices. I dont find that in the Catechism as well. I do find her unique role being defended and used as a conduit for communication in some sacraments, but not worship. NO SUCH CONDUIT IS VALID, AT ALL There are certain liturgical works, NOT FAMILIAR WITH THIS WORD, LITURGICAL WORKS? such as the sacrament of the sick and dying which point to Mary as a source of strength MARY IS NEVER DEPECITED AS A SOURCE OF STRENGTH IN DYING…SO IT IS NOT SO OBVIOUS TO ME, for obvious reasons, she being one who lived through the worlds most horrific loss of a Son, and being a Mother figure of care and love. SHE DID NOT LOSE A SON…HE ROSE FROM THE DEAD THREE DAYS LATER AND IS RULING HIS KINGDOM…THE EXPERIENCE WAS HORRIFIC FOR ALL WHOSE SINS HE BORE ON HIS BODY AND MADE THE WRATH HE ENDURED NECESSARY I suppose one would on the surface view a person, kneeling in a Church, praying out loud to Mary directly as worship, however, that is not what is taught in the Roman Catholic rite. SPEAKING TO SOMEONE IN PRAYER IS A HUGE PROBLEM!!!! HUGE IF YOU STOP AND THINK ABOUT IT, IF YOU STOP DISASSOCIATING IT FROM WORSHIP AND TRULY THINK ABOUT SPEAKING TO A BEING IN PRAYER IS ELEVATING THAT BEING TO A LEVEL WITH GOD, WHICH SHE IS NOT Most likely anyone praying the rosary to Mary is praying for a loved one through that posture of respect and esteem. Cant judge that book by its cover, but I can see how it appears to the uninitiated. I LOVE YOU VERY MUCH, I ENCOURAGE TO NOT BE OFFENDED WITH THE CONTENT NOR THINK THAT SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN SO COMMON TO US BOTH (MYSELF BEING A CATHOLIC FOR 35 YEARS) IS ACTUALLY TRUE ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE…THESE THINGS ARE NOT IN THE BIBLE AND IN FACT ARE WARNED AGAINST IN SCRIPTURE IN MANY MANY WAYS

Keep in mind that I am making a soft approach here and it may not be entirely accurate per the canon...but in a breaking the ice kind of way using personal experience as well. Cant we all get along? sheesh.