Is Mary worshiped/ no

Some Things That Catholics Do Not Believe

Very Rev. Joseph Di Bruno, D.D.

We have already passed in review what seem to be the principal points of Catholic belief, and now, in order to meet the most common of the misapprehensions and misrepresentations on these matters, we will here state, though it may be in part a repetition, some things that Catholics do not believe. 1. Catholics do not believe that there is any other Mediator of Redemption than our SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST, "For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved" than that of JESUS (Acts of the Apostles, iv.12); and when they call the Blessed Virgin or any other Saint a mediator, it is not in the sense of Mediator of Redemption attributed to our Saviour, but in the sense of intercessor or pleader, in which sense any Christian may be called a mediator, whenever he intercedes, or mediates between God and his fellow-man, as Abraham and Moses and St. Paul did, and thus prays for his neighbor. God Himself commanded Eliphaz and his friends to apply to the Patriarch Job that he should pray for them, and God promised to accept his prayers. Go to my servant Job, and offer for yourselves a holocaust; and my servant Job shall pray for you; his face I will accept, that folly be not imputed to you" (Job xlii. 8.) In this sense Moses could also say, "I was the mediator, and stood between the Lord and you". (Deuteronomy v. 5) 2. Catholics do not believe that the blessed Virgin is in any way equal or even comparable to God, for she, being a creature, although the most highly favored, is infinitely less than God. Nor do they claim for her any power beyond that which she derives from Him; for she is entirely dependent on God for her existence, her privileges, her grace and her glory. The strong, loving expressions used oftentimes by Catholics, which seem to attribute to the Blessed Virgin more than is here stated, are to be understood in the limited sense meant by Catholics themselves, as here explained; that is, in a way consistent with the Catholic teaching and not in the unlimited, un-Catholic sense which persons not understanding that teaching may be led to apply to them. These tender expressions, I say, ought not to be judged of by cold or hostile criticism, for they spring from fervent, heart-felt devotion and unmeasured love. If it were permitted to take offence at expressions which are only true in a limited sense, surely from those words of Scripture: "I have said; you are gods" (Psalm lxxxi. 6), one might argue that Holy Scripture holds certain men to be really gods. From the words of the Gospel: If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, . . . . he cannot be by disciple" (St. Luke xiv. 26), one might pretend that Christ encourages the hating of parents and other relatives. That direction of our Lord: "If thy right hand scandalize thee, cut it off" (St. Matth. v. 30) might be taken to justify self-mutilation. And from the words: "How knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife;" (I Corinth. vii. 16) some might argue that according to Scripture, a man can be the saviour of his wife. If, therefore, even in the interpretation of Holy Scripture, it would be wrong to take in the full extent expressions that were meant in a qualified sense so still more unjust would it be to apply this wrong principle to expressions found in books of devotion or in religious poetical compositions, in which a certain latitude to the expansion of a warm heart is allowed. It is a common practice among men to use expressions which are true only in a secondary and limited sense. For instance, a great poet or artist is spoken of as "divine," mothers often call their children their little "angels," "kings," and "queens," and are said to "adore" or "idolize" them, and no one thinks of blaming such tender exaggerations. And again, in the Marriage-Service in the Book of Common Prayer of the Established Church of England, the bridegroom has to say to the bride: "With my body I thee worship". No one should take offence at these expressions; indeed, it would seem captious to do so; more especially when the speaker declares his meaning. from comment 109 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/11/mary-as-co-redemptrix/#comment-78999 Zeke, as (another) convert, I can understand where you are coming from. It seems, at first, that these conversations go like this (I use adore instead of worship to maintain the distinction between “worship given to God alone” and “worship [i.e. honoring] which is relative to God,” that is, worship being used in a more inclusive sense which includes highly honoring another): Protestant: Catholics adore Mary Catholic: No we don’t. Latria vs Dulia and Hyper-Dulia. We highly honor Mary, but do not adore her. Protestant: Okay, that sounds better. Thanks! ***Protestant comes across examples of Catholics and Catholic prayers which seem to adore her*** Protestant: ???? Catholic: That’s Hyper-dulia Protestant: Is there a difference???????????? I will admit that the distinctions seems to be more theoretical than actual. I would ask you to consider a few things though: 1. Such comments must be understood within their cultural background. Writing for Catholic about Marian devotion is different than explaining Marian devotion to (rightfully) skeptical Protestants. This reminds me of Chesterton’s comment from Orthodoxy: Catholic doctrine and discipline may be walls; but they are the walls of a playground. … We might fancy some children playing on the flat grassy top of some tall island in the sea. So long as there was a wall round the cliff’s edge they could fling themselves into every frantic game and make the place the noisiest of nurseries. But the walls were knocked down, leaving the naked peril of the precipice. They did not fall over; but when their friends returned to them they were all huddled in terror in the centre of the island; and their song had ceased. When we live the distinction between God and Mary, while, yes, exalting Mary as the greatest masterpiece created by God, we can feel free to shout and sing about the greatness of Our Lady, and providing we don’t try to climb the theological walls, we are safe. This “Marian Maximalism” which is disconcerting to Protestants comes from not having the “walls” and, without the proper understandings, failing to see the sometimes subtle, but crucial, distinctions. 2. I think St. Maximilan Kolbe is a great place to understand Marian devotion. In the Koble Reader there are two excellent letters showing how Marian Maximalism doesn’t detract from Our Lord, but rather glorifies Him. from comment 112 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/11/mary-as-co-redemptrix/#comment-79122 One initial answer is that all veneration of the Saints and the Angels are in relation to God and only God can be the object of a non-referential honoring. That is, I honor, highly honor, Mary because of Her relation to the Trinity as “Daughter of the Father, Mother of the Son, Spouse of the Holy Spirit”. I honor St. Joan of Arc because of her fidelity to her, um, unique vocation, but not because she was a great general. I honor St. Charles Garnier (my namesake) because of his selfless zeal for the Gospel, and not because of any excellence of his own. Like St. Francis said, “What a man is in the eyes of God, so much he is, and no more.” So one answer is that any veneration of Mary and the Saints is in reference to the work of God in them and their response, but not due to anything of their own. In fact, that is the glory of the Saints, they had nothing that “was their own” but everything was in relation to God. St. Therese is an excellent example of this. Universally loved and venerated, she did nothing worth note of in her 24 years, except completely giving over to the Love of God, which is much more than many others accomplish in many years. This may at times seem theoretical, but I would advise Protestants to look closely, and see if, even implicit, a particular devotion is in relation to God, which it should be, or if it stops at that saint alone. Also, is it in reference to the Will of God, or does it go against it? For example forms of “false devotion” that St. Louis de Montfort criticizes in paragraphs 90-103 of True Devotion to Mary (https://www.ewtn.com/library/Montfort/TRUEDEVO.HTM). You could also point to the examples of, say, bandits who pray for success in crime, or the syncretic expropriation of the images of saints for use in voodoo rituals (I grant this is not what Protestant critiques are directed towards). My final advice would be to read the prayers before reacting negatively. Are they speaking in a qualified sense, are they praising Mary in reference to the work of God in her and through her, etc. from comment 260 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/04/ancient-marian-devotion/ If it makes you feel better, David, St. Alphonsus also wrote this in his work “History of Heresies”: 78. Among the followers of Apollinaris were the Anti-dicomarianites or adversaries of Mary. These said, following Elvidius, that she did not remain a virgin, but after the birth of Christ had other children by St. Joseph. St. Epiphanius (13), hearing that this error was prevalent in Arabia, refuted it in a long letter directed to all the faithful of that region. At the same time, and in the same country, another error altogether opposed to this was broached, that the Blessed Virgin was a sort of Deity. The followers of this sect were called Collyridians (14), because they worshipped the Virgin by offering her a certain sort of cakes called, in Greek, Collyrides. This superstition came from Thrace and Upper Sythica, and passed into Arabia. The women, especially, were almost all followers of this sect. (12) N. Alex. t. S. c. 3, a. 1481. (13) St. Epip. Her. 77, n. 26 & 78. (14) St. Epip. Her. 79 On certain fast days every year they ornamented a car, and placed on it a square bench covered with a cloth; on this a loaf was placed, and, being offered to the Virgin, was then divided among the worshippers. St. Epiphanius, in combating this superstition, showed that women can never take any part in the priesthood, and that the worship they offered to the Virgin was idolatrous; for, although the most perfect of all creatures, she was still but a creature, and should not be honored like God with that oblation (15). Like Scripture, one must interpret St. Alphonsus in his totality. As Bl. Henry Cardinal Newman stresses, one must be able to distinguish the Marian doctrine from the Marian Devotion which flows from it. If you fail to do this, you are not able to get a clear idea of either the Doctrine or the Devotion.

http://www.almostnotcatholic.com/2011/08/myth-busters-catholics-worship-mary.html
also from here http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/dontbelieve.HTM