Mary - The Mother of Our Lord

[Lamb]

Google this... Adore Definition

The first definition is love and respect (someone) deeply.

The second is worship; venerate.

The third is like (something or someone) very much.

2 out of three of those definitions describe how Catholics feel about Mary, isn't that correct?

 

[MoreCoffee]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines adore (in the glossary) thus

ADORATION: The acknowledgment of God as God, Creator and Savior, the Lord and Master of everything that exists. Through worship and prayer, the Church and individual persons give to God the adoration which is the first act of the virtue of religion. The first commandment of the law obliges us to adore God (2096, 2628; cf. 1083)​

Blessed Mary is to be venerated and may even be said to receive a special type of veneration specific to her as the mother of God but she is not adored. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines Veneration (in the glossary) thus

VENERATION (OF SAINTS): Showing devotion and respect to Mary, the Apostles, and the martyrs, who were viewed as faithful witnesses to faith in Jesus Christ. Later, veneration was given to those who led a life of prayer and self-denial in giving witness to Christ, whose virtues were recognized and publicly proclaimed in their canonization as saints (828). Such veneration is often extended to the relics or remains of those recognized as saints; indeed, to many sacred objects and images. Veneration must be clearly distinguished from adoration and worship, which are due to God alone (1154, 1674, 2132).​

The numbers in the parentheses are paragraph numbers from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[Lamb]

What's interesting is that if you look up the origin of the word "adoration" the date is 1540. That's during the Reformation.

 

[MoreCoffee]

What's interesting is that if you look up the origin of the word "adoration" the date is 1540. That's during the Reformation.

What's even more interesting is that adoration comes from Latin and that Catholics used it long before the English language even existed.

Online Etymology Dictionary. 1540s, "act of paying divine honors," from Middle French adoration, from Late Latin adorationem (nominative adoratio) "worship, adoration," noun of action from past participle stem of adorare "to worship." See adore, the original sense of which is preserved in this word.

 

[Josiah]

You know, if I can find out what the Catholic church teaches (or not) by doing five minutes worth of searching through the 'CCC', then it really stands to reason that MC is correct in his first statement. Sorry Josiah, don't hate me

[MENTION=55]ImaginaryDay2[/MENTION]


See post 16.

MC's position is that he has little interest and no concern whether what the individual RC Denomination currently says as DE FIDE DOGMAS about Mary are correct or not. Please explain how that is "correct?" I agree, it's a common stance of RCC members, but while common I don't follow you how such is thus specifically "correct."



Here's what I actually posted:

Non-RCC members generally are permitted to honor Mary, to hold Her in high esteem, even to adore Her.... without, in pure docility, swallowing whole whatever the singular, individual RC Denomination CURRENTLY shouts about Her in the most powerful and bold way, as matters of highest importance and certainty possible, as De Fide Dogma: Non RCC-members are generally permitted (perhaps even welcomed) to embrace those views (as part of their dogmatic corpus of teachings and/or as a part of their spirituality) but are not mandated to swallow it whole AS DE FIDE DOGMA, NOT because such is shown to be true (or even relevant or respectful) but simply because the singular, individual RC Denomination has so declared it (as late as 1950 in one case). As I noted in the opening post, often it's more a case of STATUS than pov.


That said, the part that bothered me most as a Catholic on this point was not the views (I understood them as pious and possible) but the very clear point that it doesn't matter whether they are true or not, this point that they can't show any of this is actually true (just probably possible) because truth just doesn't seem to matter when it comes to Mary. THIS bothered me. I love and loved Her.... and to shout that it doesn't matter whether what is SO powerfully stated about Her is true or not, whether it is gossip or not, to SHOUT it as a matter of highest importance and certainty possible but no one knows if it's true.... well, if people claim to love me, I expect them to tell the truth about me and not spread gossip (however well meaning). Make sense?



.

I posted that Protestants are "permitted" to adore Mary. Perhaps that offended or angered MC; if so, I'm not sure why. As a Catholic, I was taught constantly that we are to adore and venerate Mary (Scripture itself tells us to call Her blessed so nothin' wrong with this). Only in very, very rare cases does the word also apply to God but yes, God should be adored (even more than my wife, than Italian food, more than Hawaii, wouldn't you agree?)

a·dore
əˈdô(ə)r/
verb
verb: adore; 3rd person present: adores; past tense: adored; past participle: adored; gerund or present participle: adoring

love and respect (someone).
"he adored his mother"
synonyms: love dearly, love, be devoted to, dote on, hold dear, cherish, treasure, prize admire, hold in high regard, look up to, idolize, worship; "he adored his mother"
antonyms: hate, detest

worship; venerate. "he adored the Sacred Host"
synonyms: worship, glorify, praise, revere, reverence, exalt, extol, venerate

informal: like (something or someone) very much; "she adores Mexican cuisine"
synonyms: like, love, be very fond of, be very keen on, be partial to

ImaginaryDay2, Lamm put it this way:

Google this... Adore Definition

The first definition is love and respect (someone) deeply.

The second is worship; venerate.

The third is like (something or someone) very much.

2 out of three of those definitions describe how Catholics feel about Mary, isn't that correct?

Well, someone seems to think that MC was highly offended by my statement that Protestants generally are "permitted to adore Mary." I'm not sure that MC is offended by that and if so, I have no clue why he would be. But obviously, the word does not exclusively (or even usually) indicate the object of such must be exclusively The Lord God (indeed, I suspect that 99.9999% of the time, it does not). No, I did NOT say that Protestants are permitted to regard Mary as The Lord God (I posted no such thing, obviously). MC would be wise to rebuke me IF I said that, but obviously I did not. I know of no Protestant (indeed, no Christian who may or may not belong to ANY Christian denomination) that regards Mary as The Lord God, that would be absurd (and a hijack since this thread is about the current Marian DE FIDE DOGMAS of the individual Denomination and specifically if such is true to the level claimed, and as I recall, the RCC is extremely clear that Mary is NOT in any sense divine).




Back to the issue of whether the current divisive Marian DE FIDE DOGMAS of the individual RC Denomination are true (to the level claimed) or if such is "of no concern."



Thank you, ImaginaryDay2.



Pax Christi


- Josiah




.

 

[Albion]

You know, if I can find out what the Catholic church teaches (or not) by doing five minutes worth of searching through the 'CCC', then it really stands to reason that MC is correct in his first statement. Sorry Josiah, don't hate me

It seems to me that the key word here is "permitted." What the official stance of the church happens to be, and what it allows, are two different things.

Whenever a critic says that the RCC permits or even promotes a dubious religious practice or belief, the reply from a defender of the church is likely to be to refer to what's written in the catechism or some other such document that few practicing Catholics in good standing have ever read. But what these members DO, and what their church does about it, is a valid issue for discussion. That's a question of what the church "permits."

Interestingly, whenever the focus happens to be a Protestant church, the standard is reversed. In such a case, it doesn't matter to the critic if a church confession or constitution forbids X. Not so long as any group of non-Catholics or a pastor does something questionable. The only thing that is supposed to matter in that case is that they are classified as Protestants, so..."that's Protestantism for you!"

By what logic must we say that a denomination and/or its members and clergy do not, could not, do what they actually do...merely because a church document might say it's improper? Had the claim been that the church "taught" this or that, we would be looking at a different issue, but, as noted, what was said here was that it "permitted" something.

 

[Josiah]

It seems to me that the key word here is "permitted." What the official stance of the church happens to be, and what it allows, are two different things.

I don't imagine why anyone would think that MoreCoffee is offended and angered because I posted that generally PROTESTANTS are PERMITTED to adore Mary....

But my experience, over the past dozen years or so, is that SOME Catholics (don't know if MC "fits" in this or not) will go to great lengths to TRY to divert any discussion away from what the individual RC Denomination currently states as DE FIDE DOGMA about Mary - and whether such is true (to the level claimed). Some will do ANYTHING to try to change the topic away from the issue of truth and the current status of these dogmas in the individual RC Denomination, all while insisting that personally they could care less about the whole thing (which of course places them in protest to their denomination which insists that these are issues of greatest importance and concern possible) and don't care if these dogmas are true or not (which again places them in protest toward their denomination which insists and tells them they are matters of highest certainty of truth possible). Rather than state, "These ARE true to the level claimed because....." or "I don't really agree with my denomination on this point...." we often get a LOT of diversion and evasion. As a former Catholic, personally I understand the dynamic going on here. But it is NOT my desire to get into that; my point is simply to discuss the current Marian Dogmas of the individual RC Denomination, in hopefully as objective and respectful way possible. I think I gave given my view (ONE - a Protestant - seemed to have a bit of a "disagreement" with me but otherwise, there's not yet been any discussion of these current de fide dogmas - as teachings or as de fide dogma).

Whenever a critic says that the RCC permits or even promotes a dubious religious practice or belief, the reply from a defender of the church is likely to be to refer to what's written in the catechism or some other such document that few practicing Catholics in good standing have ever read. But what these members DO, and what their church does about it, is a valid issue for discussion. That's a question of what the church "permits."

Interestingly, whenever the focus happens to be a Protestant church, the standard is reversed. In such a case, it doesn't matter to the critic if a church confession or constitution forbids X. Not so long as any group of non-Catholics or a pastor does something questionable. The only thing that is supposed to matter in that case is that they are classified as Protestants, so..."that's Protestantism for you!"

By what logic must we say that a denomination and/or its members and clergy do not, could not, do what they actually do...merely because a church document might say it's improper? Had the claim been that the church "taught" this or that, we would be looking at a different issue, but, as noted, what was said here was that it "permitted" something.

Valid points. Good to have you here; I remember well your perceptive wisdom from "the other website" and why we've been friends for over a decade....



Back to the issue at hand.



Pax Christi


- Josiah

 

[Josiah]

Here's the opening post....

I wrote and posted this at "the-website-that-shall-not-be-named" 10 years ago, part of what make me so hated there (my view on Mary was the basis for why staff was so dismayed by me). It created quite a heated reply from Catholics toward me at the time at that site. I repost it here (10 years later)


Mary - the Mother of Our Lord


What God's Holy Scriptures tell us:

Matthew 1:23/Isaiah 7:14
Mark 3:31-35; 6:1-6
Luke 1:27, 31-33, 39-55
Luke 2:1-24, 49
John 2:4
John 19:26-27
Acts 1:14
That's it. That's all.



Immaculate Conception:

No Scripture remotely confirms it.
No Scripture clearly denies it (although some make it problematic)
Which leaves an unnormed but traditional opinion.
IMHO: Not dogma, not heresy. Permitted opinion.
Recently dogma in the Roman Catholic denomination, but largely embrace by Eastern Orthodox Christians (although not dogma there)


Perpetual Virginity:

No Scripture remotely confirms it.
No Scripture clearly denies it (but some verses may make it problematic)
Which leaves an unnormed but tradtional view.
IMHO: Not dogma, not heresy. Possible opinion.
Dogma in the Catholic Church, official teaching in the EOC. Embraced as pious opinion by some Anglican and Lutheran Christians.


Divine Maternity: ("Matre Dei" "Theodokos")

Scriptural support for the divine nature of Christ is solid. Since Mary is the mother of Jesus and Jesus has a divine nature, in THAT sense, this is normed.
Tradition affirms this interpretation.
IMHO: Accepted as a title but potentially very misleading.
(Not dogma anywhere)
Title is used in the Roman Catholic and Easter Orthodox churches, and at times among Anglicans and Lutherans.


"Queen of Heaven":

Related to above; in ancient Jewish culture, the mother of a king often had this title. It's not dogma but a title for Mary. As such, it is fitting.
IMHO: Accepted, but potentially misleading.
(Not dogma in the CC) Title is found in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.


Assumption of Mary:

Nothing in Scripture remotely confirms this.
Nothing in Scripture clearly denies this.
Which leaves an unnormed but traditional opinion.
IMHO: Not dogma, not heresy. Opinion.
Newly dogma in the CC; not dogma but generally embraced in the Eastern Orthodox Church



Coredemptrix:

Nothing in Scripture remotely confirms this.
Nothing in Scripture clearly denied this, although several verses make it problemmatic.
Which leave an unnormed and I think fairly new viewpoint.
IMHO: Not dogma, probably not heresy. Opinion.
(Not dogma in the CC but expected to be declared so soon)


Mediatrix of all Graces:

Nothing in Scripture remotely confirms this.
Nothing in Scripture clearly denies this, although 1 Tim. 2:5 may make this problemmatic.
IMHO: Not dogma, not heresy if property understood. Opinion.
(Not dogma in the CC)




Some quotes:

Pope Pius IX Eneffabilis Deus (1854), "Let the most dear children of the Catholic Church hear these words and with more ardent zeal of piety, religion and love, proceed to worship, invoke and pray to the most Blessed Virgin Mary."


Pope Pius XII Coronation at Fatima (1948), "Mary is indeed worthy to receive honor and might and glory. She is exalted to hypostatic union with the Blessed Trinity. Her Kingdom is as great as her Son's and God's."


While I won't quote them, it's clear that Martin Luther used the titles for Mary of "Mother of God" and "Ever Virgin Mary." Early on anyway, he accepted the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (although not as dogma) and rejected the Immaculate Conception of Mary and Assumption of Mary - then not dogmas as they are now. Of course, for Protestants, Luther was just a student of the Bible - fully accountable and subject to it. His words carry no more authority than any other man's.




Some Misc. thoughts....

1. God focused very little on Mary in His holy written Word to the church - the Scriptures. Like Mary, it's focus is on Christ.


2. While Catholics DO speak of a certain "worship" of Mary, they make it very clear they do not worship her as divine. "Mary belongs to the offspring of Adam and is one with all human beings in their need for salvation" (Vatican II) In modern English, "worship" has taken on that additional meaning it didn't have until recently. NONE of the current Marian dogmas in any sense or manner embrace Mary as The Lord God or divine in any way; the words often used in relation to her (respect, adore, revere, venerate, worship, esteem) are admittedly all words that (rarely) are applied to the divine but that's not the case with Catholics (or Protestants or any other Christians).


3. At one time, Protestants (especially Lutherans and Anglicans) shared a certain veneration of Mary nearly the same as Catholics. As Catholics have become far more focused on Mary (note the dates of the quotes above, the Immaculate Conception was not declared dogma until 1854, the Assumption of Mary not until 1950), Protestants have moved away - in what I consider foolish and tragic - it seems just so as to not see "Catholic."


4. Even an 18 year old guy cannot help but be amazingly moved by Luke Chapter 1. Here is a woman, probably younger than me, with a humility, faith and devotion that are beyond the ability of words to convey. That she might be considered chief among all saints is something I wouldn't challenge. Luke 1 and the story of Abraham and Issac about to be sacrificed are accounts that immediately spring to my mind when I think of what faith and discipleship mean...


5. IMHO, the DOGMAS that the Roman Catholics have declared (some very recently) have been unfortunate, they've actually served on REDUCING the esteem Christians have for Mary and meaning that FEWER now regard Her as 'blessed.' The irrelevant and abiblical DOGMAS have become the focus, as as people have so often rejected them, Mary has largely gotten "lost" as a result.


6. In my Catholic days, I saw a FEW (really a tiny percentage) of Catholics who were ... well, let's say WEIRD when it came to Mary, they just seemed to go way overboard. This bothered many Catholics. Unfortunately, what they say and did at times became known to Protestants who THINK such is common among Catholics. There are Mary wackos in the Roman Catholic Church and Catholics often will admit that. I think too a FEW (a tiny percentage) of Catholics have a very emotional relationship to Mary (consider a teen in love, LOL) and this IMHO at times causes them to say and do things that maybe are hard to objectively understand (just like teens in love, LOL). In my Catholic days, I could easily cut these people some slack. On the one hand, if this relationship to Mary gives them comfort and strength - good. On the other hand, if they use it to base some superiority over others or in some divisive way - bad.



- Josiah

Hopefully, we can get to the topic. Thanks!




.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

I posted that Protestants are "permitted" to adore Mary. Perhaps that offended or angered MC; if so, I'm not sure why. As a Catholic, I was taught constantly that we are to adore and venerate Mary (Scripture itself tells us to call Her blessed so nothin' wrong with this). Only in very, very rare cases does the word also apply to God but yes, God should be adored (even more than my wife, than Italian food, more than Hawaii, wouldn't you agree?)

If adoration of Mary is specifically not a Catholic doctrine, and the CCC specifically teaches against it, why would it be "permitted" for Protestants? That would make my mis-reading of your post an entirely different issue; one for which Protestants that believe Marian adoration is "permitted" should be corrected. And the statement that you were "taught that (you) are to adore and venerate Mary" tells me that you were taught wrong (please notice where the emphasis is).

Well, someone seems to think that MC was highly offended by my statement that Protestants generally are "permitted to adore Mary." I'm not sure that MC is offended by that and if so, I have no clue why he would be.

I don't think it was offense so much as a correction.

But obviously, the word does not exclusively (or even usually) indicate the object of such must be exclusively The Lord God (indeed, I suspect that 99.9999% of the time, it does not).

According to the CCC, which I looked up, yes it does (as concerns Mary).

No, I did NOT say that Protestants are permitted to regard Mary as The Lord God (I posted no such thing, obviously). MC would be wise to rebuke me IF I said that, but obviously I did not. I know of no Protestant (indeed, no Christian who may or may not belong to ANY Christian denomination) that regards Mary as The Lord God, that would be absurd (and a hijack since this thread is about the current Marian DE FIDE DOGMAS of the individual Denomination and specifically if such is true to the level claimed, and as I recall, the RCC is extremely clear that Mary is NOT in any sense divine).

Agreed. You did not say, nor imply, any of the above.

Edit - All I was calling attention to was the fact that you - [MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION] - a former Catholic by your own admission, openly stated that Protestants are permitted to "adore Mary". I believe that was a tad disingenuous, knowing full well that the word has a different context for Catholics than it might for Protestants. And, as this is the "Christian Theology" forum, I went to the source for a definition, rather than Rev. Webster.

 

[Albion]

According to the CCC, which I looked up, yes it does (as concerns Mary).

What I get from your comment here is that if the RCC has some statement in its voluminous catechisms and other documents which says X, then it is impossible that the church and its officials would ever teach the membership in contradiction to that statement or willingly permit them to believe or do something not in accord with such statement. Would that be an accurate reading of what you intended to say?

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=55]ImaginaryDay2[/MENTION]

If adoration of Mary is specifically not a Catholic doctrine, and the CCC specifically teaches against it, why would it be "permitted" for Protestants?

IMO, it is generally "permitted" for Protestants because Protestants have nothing dogmatically against Mary but rather note the Scripture that says that "all generations shall call her blessed." And of course, she is the mother of Our Lord (reason enough) and an example of enormous faith and obedience. Just as I stated before. Make sense?

And "adoring" "venerating" "worshiping" "revering" "esteeming" "respecting" are not dogmas (or even teachings), they are practices (verbs, not nouns) which is why the opening post doesn't list these verbs as dogmas.

And of course, most PROTESTANTS did until the last 200 years or so as many PROTESTANTS have increasingly ignored Mary (I believe in direct response to the increasing DE FIDE DOGMAS of the RC Denomination, but that's another subject for another day and thread).

That would make my mis-reading of your post an entirely different issue; one for which Protestants that believe Marian adoration is "permitted" should be corrected. And the statement that you were "taught that (you) are to adore and venerate Mary" tells me that you were taught wrong (please notice where the emphasis is).

Note that very, very, very rarely is the word used with The Lord God as the sole object and very, very, very often is the word used with objects other than The Lord God. I defined the word. Lamm did, as well. I think Tigger also noted the nearly universal meaning of the word. Now, our friend MC may dislike the word, but I was specifically told (many times, by many teachers) that it is most appropriate to adore, revere, venerate, respect Our Lady (yes, those words were used; open any dictionary and look up the meanings - they are virtually interchangeable in common English usage). Now, did our Catholic teachers mean we should regard Her as The Lord God? Of course not (as I specifically stated in this thread), that is specially forbidden since Mary is not - in any sense, The Lord God (in Catholicism or in Protestantism; indeed, I specifically stated such is found nowhere in Christianity).


And again, friend, I did NOT say, "Members of the RC Denomination are permitted to regard Mary as The Lord God." I posted, "PROTESTANTS are generally permitted to adore Mary." And yes, I went on to define the word. Now, I have no idea why any Protestant would think that MC is offended by what I stated PROTESTANTS are generally permitted to do. Follow me?


Frankly, I wonder (just wonder) if all this is another example, yet still another example, of Catholics successfully diverting the topic away from the truthfulness of the current De Fide Dogmas of the RCC, the topic of this thread?

Agreed. You did not say, nor imply, any of the above.

Perhaps what we witness is an attempt (successful, it means) to divert the thread?

All I was calling attention to was the fact that you - a former Catholic by your own admission, openly stated that Protestants are permitted to "adore Mary".

Correct. A point confirmed by Lamm and Tigger, and not disputed by any so far.

A member, a Catholic by his own admission, openly stated that this entire issue is "of little interest and no concern".

He wished to go on record saying that one of the 2,865 points of the latest edition of the RCC Catechism suggests that members of the RC Denomination shouldn't use the specific word "adore" in reference to Mary if such means Mary is thus regarded as divine - and that's fine (again, read the opening post), but it has nothing remotely to do with anything I state in any of the posts of this thread, nor does it have anything to do with the post he noted since it was what PROTESTANTS are generally allowed to do (few members of Protestant churches are also docilic members of RCC churches), especially since Lamm, Tigger and myself noted the nearly universal meaning of the term. [Side note: The Catechism itself uses the words "venerate" and "worship" vis-a-vis Mary and, as we all know, these words can be entirely interchangeable in English meaning with the word "adore", but let's move on].


[SIDE POINT: While I have met many who have memorized Luther's Small Catechism (it's about 8 pages long), I've never met a Catholic who has memorized the current, latest edition of the ever changing RCC Catechism (it's over 800 pages long). And while the clergy of the RCC is extremely well trained and knowledgeable, they do little-to-none of the theology teaching in Catholicism (unlike clergy in most of Protestantism); all my Catholic teachers were laypersons. I think all ex-Catholics known to me would agree that we eventually discovered that some of the things we were taught were not only wrong but in some cases not even Catholic. That has CERTAINLY been my experience. But I'm WAY, WAY off topic and just feeding the diversion attempt.]



And remember that IN THE OPENING POST, I specifically state that Catholics do NOT regard Mary as "divine" in any sense whatsoever. I do so in reference to "worship" rather than "adore" (they can have identical meanings, of course) but I made the point IN THE OPENING POST that Catholics do not teach that Mary is divine and do not regard Her as such and have no practices that so regard Her. That point was made very clearly in the opening post, so any "interpretation" in a later post by me would not permit any suggestion that Catholics are taught to so regard Her (and of course, my statement was about what PROTESTANTS are generally permitted to do)


I wonder if we're not dealing with a successful diversion?

I went to the source for a definition, rather than Rev. Webster.

What source did you go to in order to discover the meaning I used? Why do you dispute the definition I gave for a word I used as concerns PROTESTANTS? What source did you go to?

And I specifically stated that Catholics and Protestants alike do NOT hold that Mary is in any sense The Lord God, so knowing that, what did you think I meant by Protestants "adoring" Mary, which meaning of the word did you think I must have meant?




Back to the topic at hand...... See posts #1 or #48.




Pax Christi



- Josiah



.

 

[MoreCoffee]

[MENTION=55]... I was specifically told (many times, by many teachers) that it is most appropriate to adore, revere, venerate Our Lady (yes, those words were used).
...

Presumably your teachers were protestants or atheists or really badly informed and extremely incautious lay people with little to no knowledge of Catholic teaching because the Catholic Church explicitly excludes the use of "adore" for any creature and explicitly teaches that "venerate" and "veneration" are to be offered to the Blessed Virgin Mary, the apostles, and holy angels, and the saints. That has already been shown both in the etymology of the word "adore" and in the teaching of the Catholic Church from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I can show you the same cautious use of the words "adore" and "venerate" in the Roman Catechism of the sixteenth century and even in the Latin father's writings where they touch on the matter of the veneration of the saints and their relics and the adoration of Jesus Christ and the most holy Trinity. I expect that this information will be ignored however, just as it has been multiple times before.

 

[Albion]

Presumably your teachers were protestants or atheists or really badly informed and extremely incautious lay people with little to no knowledge of Catholic teaching because the Catholic Church explicitly excludes the use of "adore" for any creature...

Why would anyone presume that the teachers in the Catholic Church were Protestants or Atheists or people with no knowledge of the Catholic Church?

 

[Josiah]

Presumably your teachers were protestants or atheists or really badly informed and extremely incautious lay people with little to no knowledge of Catholic teaching

Then my Catholic parish should not have entrusted them with teaching Catholic youth. Once again, I seem to have a much higher respect for your denomination than you do, I would not even entertain the thought (much less presume) that Catholic parishes entrust the religious teaching of Catholic youth to atheists. I do agree that some of the teachers are inadequately trained (but then that observation probably applies to all denominations, although in Protestant parishes, the seminary trained clergy tend to do the theological training).


Now, I know you have little interest and no concern about this topic, but let's TRY to stick to the topic of the current Marian DE FIDE DOGMAS of your denomination - and specifically if they are true to the level claimed.

explicitly teaches that "venerate" and "veneration" are to be offered to the Blessed Virgin Mary, the apostles, and holy angels, and the saints.

Get out any dictionary.... look up all the meanings of "worship" "adore" "revere" "venerate" "respect" .... write down all the meanings for each.... then draw a line between same meanings. It may open your eyes. But again, if you had read the opening post you'd know I specifically and clearly state that Catholics and the RC Denomination does and do NOT regard Mary as The Lord God (no one does).

IF your point is that our Catholic teachers SHOULD not use the word "adore" but rather some other words with identical meaning - fine, perhaps so. It doesn't change what they said/taught, nor does it mean all dictionaries are wrong about the various meanings of these words or that I'm wrong in the dictionary meaning I gave used (especially since you know I don't use it to imply divinity when the object is Mary). But, it would be great if we could get back to the subject of this thread: Whether the current Marian De Fide Dogmas of the RC Denomination are true and necessary to the level claimed?



See posts 1 or 48. Thanks!



- Josiah




.

 

[Albion]

Duplicate Post

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Josiah has given a definition of "adore" and applied it to Mary, that is not "De Fide Dogma" (the topic of this thread) of the Catholic church - of which he was a member. The suggestion that Protestants are "allowed" to adore Mary (a point also raised by him, before being called a diversion) has yet to be shown to be the true teaching of any Protestant denomination. If Josiah can show this, I'll leave it alone. As i said before, this is the Christian Theology forum. I don't think it unreasonable to ask for proofs, or provide argument to the contrary.

 

[Albion]

Why would anyone presume that the teachers in the Catholic Church were Protestants or Atheists or people with no knowledge of the Catholic Church?

Because Josiah has given a definition of "adore" and applied it to Mary, that is not "De Fide Dogma" (the topic of this thread) of the Catholic church - of which he was a member. The suggestion that Protestants are "allowed" to adore Mary (a point also raised by him, before being called a diversion) has yet to be shown to be the true teaching of any Protestant denomination. If Josiah can show this, I'll leave it alone. As i said before, this is the Christian Theology forum. I don't think it unreasonable to ask for proofs, or provide argument to the contrary.

Looks like an answer to a question I did not ask.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Looks like an answer to a question I did not ask.

I addressed MC's point, which you conveniently did not (or, at least, addressed what you felt like...). I'll scrub your quote from my response. Besides, there has been more than enough discussion around the potential errors that have been made about Protestants (or anyone) being "allowed to adore" Mary that MC's continued objection should not be a surprise.

Edit: Fixed.

 

[Josiah]

Why would anyone presume that the teachers in the Catholic Church were Protestants or Atheists or people with no knowledge of the Catholic Church?


.

Because Josiah has given a definition of "adore" and applied it to Mary, that is not "De Fide Dogma" (the topic of this thread) of the Catholic church - of which he was a member. The suggestion that Protestants are "allowed" to adore Mary (a point also raised by him, before being called a diversion) has yet to be shown to be the true teaching of any Protestant denomination. If Josiah can show this, I'll leave it alone. As i said before, this is the Christian Theology forum. I don't think it unreasonable to ask for proofs, or provide argument to the contrary.

1. [MENTION=55]ImaginaryDay2[/MENTION] please first read post # 51. It seems you missed that. Thanks.


2. It was MC who presumed that my Catholic parish authorized atheists to teach the Catholic youth. I did NOT so indicate, [MENTION=389]Albion[/MENTION] did NOT so indicate, it was MC that "presumed" that. And he exclusively. I stated that it seems yet again that I have a higher view of the RC Denomination than MC does because I would never even entertain such a thought, never regard it as even possible, never remotely suggest such - much less "presume" it as MC did. Albion was surprised that MC (a self confessed Catholic) would suggest such a thing about his denomination, a point that IMO it seems you completely missed (I was a bit surprised, too, but I saw this has having NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with MC's view of his denomination but likely just another diversion attempt - which worked).


3. That Protestants are generally allowed to respect/adore/venerate/hold in esteem/call blessed is not a dogma. Once again, my friend, "respect" "adore" "venerate" "be devoted to" "hold in esteem" "call blessed" are all verbs and thus are all things DONE, it is practice. Teachings are nouns. Which is why all the current de fide dogmas listed in the opening post are TEACHINGS, positions ABOUT and CONCERNING Mary. No, friend, I cannot show that "generally Protestants are ALLOWED to respect/hold in esteem/call blessed/honor Mary is a Dogma in some Protestant denominations because it is not possible for a practice to be a dogma because of course dogmas are teachings and practices are, well, practices. If I posted that Protestants are generally permitted to drink coffee that would not be a dogma either. "Ford makes the best cars in the world" is a teaching (and if declared one of highest certainty, concern, importance and relevance it would be a de fide dogma); "I drive a Ford" is a practice ("praxis" is the churchy word). You're right, CH generally allows praxis to also be discussed in the theology forum but that doesn't make them the same thing. Your demand of me is a bit like mandating that since I drive a Mazda, therefore I have to prove that it is a matter of highest importance, certainty, concern and relevance (a matter on which our salvation may hinge) that Mazdas are the best cars made or the only cars made. Dogma and practice are not the same thing.



4. Yes, this IS a Christian theology forum. See post #1 or 48. This is about the issue of whether the current list of Marian DE FIDE DOGMAS (TEACHINGS, not practices...... DE FIDE DOGMAS, issues of highest certainty and concern possible, issues of highest importance possible) are true and to the level claimed. It's a discussion of whether these current TEACHINGS (not practices) are true (practices cannot be true or false, only appropriate or inappropriate) to the level claimed (as de fide dogmas). In the opening post, I mention as a foot note that Catholics do NOT "worship" Mary as God because it is not the TEACHING of the RCC or Catholics that Mary IS God; the point (obviously) is not to bring the issue of praxis into the thread but to make it clear that none of these current Marian de fide Dogmas teach that Mary is divine. Follow?



5. IMO, it may well be a successful diversion attempt of poster to TRY to get all the attention off the whole issue of the opening post, the entire issue of the current Marian De Fide Dogmas of the RC Denomination (and whether they are true to the level claimed). It was easy, too. I invite you, too, to get out any dictionary. Look up the following words: Adore, respect, revere, honor, venerate, worship. List all the meanings of each. Then connect the same meanings found for other words in the list. It might be revealing to you. I think it would be very helpful. But don't post it here, let it be for your own epiphany. And again, friend, I did NOT say, "Members of the RC Denomination are permitted to regard Mary as The Lord God." I posted, "PROTESTANTS are generally permitted to adore Mary." And yes, I went on to define the word. Now, I have no idea why any Protestant would think that MC is offended by what I stated PROTESTANTS are generally permitted to do. Follow me? Now, it's hard to prove such a thing but I'd simple ask you (not knowing the denominational membership of your parish), does your denomination FORBID you from respecting Mary? But it was a side point; I was simply trying to point out the "middle ground" of traditional Protestantism which PERMITS/ALLOWS these views but does not MANDATE or dogmatize them. Thus the word "allow." I'm sure you know that. But again, as I in fact predicted, there perhaps are Catholics who are very skilled at diverting the discussion away from the current Marian De Fide Dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church to anything else (perhaps even willing to accuse the RCC of appointing atheists to teach Catholic youth about Catholic theology it seems!!!). Curious, it seems to me. But what is, is. I've been trying to discuss the singular topic (and yes, it IS Christian THEOLOGY) are these current Marian De Fide Dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church true? And to the level claimed? Should they be MANDATED issues officially and formally and in a binding way declared as issues of highest certainty and concern possible, highest importance possible? Yes, our Catholic brother has stated his departure from his denomination on this point, stating that these issues are, in his view, "issues of little importance and no concern" and has revealed that by his lack of involvement in the topic (not once addressing the issue AT ALL). But we have seen successful diversion attempts, IMO, but let us PLEASE move on. Let us see if there can be a discussion of the topic: Whether these current Marian De Fide Dogmas of the RCC are true and to the level and importance declared/mandated by that singular denomination? MC has stated his view (one I disagree with; I think I have a much more Catholic view than he does), what is yours?



I direct you again to posts # 1 and 51. Thanks!



Pax Christi



- Josiah




.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Will pick this up again after work. Imo, this is in line with the OP, as well as statements that were brought into the discussion by you (Josiah).

Edit - A small perusal of your last response has this:

"Whether these current Marian De Fide Dogmas of the RCC are true and to the level and importance declared/mandated by that singular denomination? MC has stated his view (one I disagree with; I think I have a much more Catholic view than he does)"

I believe that my questions are right on topic.