A Christian does not have to be a Catholic to know and acknowledge the role our Father God used the virgin mother to play in his plan of salvation for mankind. It saddens me to see people disparage her the way you have done in this post. Calling her their Mary is derogatory. We know how people respect, adore and hold in high esteem Presidents, Queens and Kings of this world, not to talk of their biological mothers. And, when it comes to honouring the virgin Mary, who gave birth to our saviour Jesus Christ, they talk nonsense.
Disparage her? Why sensationalize what I said into that arena? Does that somehow lend more credibility to your accusation? Does it remedy the problems they create with all the various teachings about her that have become deeply entrenched into their belief system? There is so much more to all this than you have allowed into your vastly limited position.
The RCC respect , honour, reverence her because our Father God first honoured, blessed and favoured her above all women. What is wrong with this?
Did you notice the differing terms in your statements? You said that its the RCC that pays "reverence" to their Mary, but not God. There's no argument that Mary was indeed blessed above other women:
Luke 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, [thou that art]
highly favoured, the Lord [is] with thee:
blessed [art] thou among women.
Notice that she was blessed AMONG women, but favored above them for...bearing the physical vessel the eternal Son inhabited. Yes.
However, the issues and problems do not stop there. If that were the only extent to what is accorded to her, then we would not be having this conversation. It would be a non-issue, but pretending this is the extent in totality...no. It's far more than this.
I am very sure the Catholics do not worship Mary and she has never been an object of their worship as a deity. Just as we read the scriptures sometimes and believe we have understood what we have read and we run with that, not knowing that our understanding is below par, so, we see some of their practices, we form opinions believing we understand.
There is a difference. Where scripture is concerned, we are told this:
1 John 2:26-27
26 These [things] have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. 27 But
the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
When it comes to the catechisms and the observed practices, there is no need for divine interpretation for understanding, so trying to align the two as if they are a parallel to one another is an exercise in futility. The three Hebrew boys who were thrown into the furnace for their refusal to give even the APPEARANCE of evil, that speaks loud volumes to the compromises and downright evils that are presented in the overall panorama of what we can see in what is written, said, prayed and done in her name within the RCC.
Even, some Catholics themselves, unfortunately, do not have a good grasp of what they do but this is not peculiar to them. It cuts across denominations. There is so much ignorance of the way of the cross even among us here in CC. But we take solace in the fact that knowledge and understanding is "progressive". We grow in grace.
Who are you? Have the members of the RCC made you their spokesperson? You certainly aren't speaking from the scriptures:
Ephesians 2:8 For
by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:
Perhaps YOU are trying to "grow in grace," but I and many others have already received it in full, with it having been bestowed upon us to the full extent of salvation without any question for the assumed need for purging. The Jesus described within the pages of the Bible is not the same Jesus they teach and revere. The Jesus of the Bible, said, "It is finished." The RCC adds to the words of Jesus by teaching, "It was only finished to the extent of salvation, but not complete remission and cleansing away of all sins." The Jesus of the Bible does not need a co-mediator:
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him,
I am the way, the truth, and the life:
no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Nowhere in that context do we see the Lord and Creator of us all including Mary as a mediator. They have subjectively added her as another avenue. Why? If you speak for them, then perhaps you can answer that.
Yes, I know the Catholics ask for her intercessions in prayers. I do not know why we find this strange. How does this remove the fact that Jesus is the only saviour of the world and our mediator as it is written, which they believe also.
Making that desire for "intercession" into a minimal item of concern in an attempt to trivialize the objections is just another manipulative tactic that doesn't work on me. You either believe what Jesus said, or you do not. That's the dividing line. Trying to paint around the confines of Christ alone, in yellow stripes, in order to try and expand the intermediary borders around where Christ alone is our mediator. that only highlights your own lack of understanding and discernment.
If you read your bible well, you will see that even Paul encouraged his gentile converts to always pray for him and the Ministry and he constantly prayed for them as well. When our children get sick for instance, what do we do? we pray for their quick recovery even if we take them to the hospital. Pastors pray on behalf of people as well. These are all intercessory prayers, not different from what the RCCs do in relation to the virgin mother. They request her to pray for them. People say, the difference is that she is dead. Search the scriptures and you will see that it is written, God is not the God of the dead but of the living for all who died in him live unto him. Jesus gave the example of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Or, do we talk about the presence of Elijah and Moses during his transfiguration.
You make it sound so innocent and easy, as if it were no big deal to include Mary as a mediator. Well, we both know Mary is not the only one they pray to. Your skills at minimalizing vastly important issues that have ramifications far beyond what you attribute to them in relation to the Bible only shows that YOU obviously don't read your Bible well.
Seriously? Why is it that YOU don't accept what the Bible says? Please show me where Paul encouraged ANYONE to pray to Mary or any of the other dead people (yes, they are dead...to this world, obviously) who the RCC subjectively "sainted." Where does the word of God encourage us to ask those who are gone from this world to intercede or do anything on our behalf.
Beyond that, please explain to us how it does not attribute to Mary and the others the powers and nature of God for them to hear every person on this earth who prays to them (omnipresence and omniscience). How do you know they have those abilities? Do you believe that because the RCC teaches it? Pretending that this is all harmless and of no consequence only betrays your lack in any desire to allow scripture to speak for itself in an authoritative foundation for truth.
Whether we know and acknowledge it or not, she is continuing to intercede for us the way she interceded at that wedding at Cana in Galilee where there was no wine, nobody asked for it, she saw the lack and besought her son, our Lord Jesus Christ.
And He THEN asked her: John 2:4 Jesus saith unto her,
Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
She clearly was out of line, and He explained why, although he honored her and the wedding party with the best wine they had ever drank. You can speculate all you want about the reasons why He went ahead and honored the request and the wishes of the other people there, but to try and transplant that off into eternity the idea that RCC people's prayers are heard and expressed by her in like manner to Jesus is nothing more than human ingenuity for invention of doctrine.
For me, she is truly worthy to be called our Queen mother (why not).
No, the question is WHY? That's of pagan origin, the concept and designation "queen of heaven." Why paganize Mary with a title originating and couched in that type of positional accolade? Why would you or anyone else do that to her?
The queen of heaven and earth and we accord her all the respect, honour, reverence and blessings our Lord God bestowed on her.
Again, why? She was not sinless, and was therefore in need of a Savior just like all the rest of us. Why believe what is contrary to the written word of God?
MM