Is it possible to give Mary too much veneration?

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

Luther and Calvin would be shown the door of most Protestant groups with the opinions they had about Mary.

Luther held Mary in high esteem throughout his life. I once read he even laid flowers on the foot of a statue of her placed in his garden.
Furthermore there's also a picture painted at the time shortly after the reformation where Calvin and Luther were painted with rosaries in their hands.

Luther accepted the rosary, but kept it according to scripture only which resulted in a modified Hail Mary without the intercession part.

To summarize: I concur that they would've been tossed out of many protestant sects today.

 

[royal priest]

I think that some disagreement from Protestants springs from terminology used.

In English, "worship" can mean anything from the reverence due a god, to simply bowing in respect / deference to another, to being a really big fan of something or someone. Protestants see images of Catholics bowing in respect towards an image of Mary, and cry out "see, you *do* worship her!"

In Greek and Latin, the distinction is very, very clear. Worship is due to God alone. Veneration is due to the Saints. It is good and proper to venerate Our Lady. But we should never confuse her with God, or ascribe to her things that are untrue.

One thing that prompted this question is that I am reading through the Lord of the Rings trilogy with my niece and nephew. Last week, we came to the part where Frodo and Samwise are lauded for having accomplished their task of destroying the Ring of Doom. There, we read of how the people were called to give 'great praise' to Frodo and Sam. I was noting with my fellow readers how, in the Scripture, we see that God is the only being to whom people are called upon to render great praise. But in RCC tradition (of which Tolkien was an adherent) such praise is rendered to saints in accordance to their hagiology.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

One thing that prompted this question is that I am reading through the Lord of the Rings trilogy with my niece and nephew. Last week, we came to the part where Frodo and Samwise are lauded for having accomplished their task of destroying the Ring of Doom. There, we read of how the people were called to give 'great praise' to Frodo and Sam. I was noting with my fellow readers how, in the Scripture, we see that God is the only being to whom people are called upon to render great praise. But in RCC tradition (of which Tolkien was an adherent) such praise is rendered to saints in accordance to their hagiology.

But this is where Protestants who have this mindset/attitude aren't true to the Jewish cultural and liturgical norms. You see a type of veneration in the OT. The Israelites carried the bones of Joseph so he could be buried in the promise land. The synagogue had the Moses seat. The Passover Seder has "Elijah's seat" place setting. The realm of Sheol where the righteous dead resided was named "the bosom of Abraham". And of course in the NT we have "The Great Cloud of Witnesses" that Paul spoke of and so on. Anyway the Patriarchs and other people of faith were esteemed more highly than just being an average dude.

 

[thecolorsblend]

There, we read of how the people were called to give 'great praise' to Frodo and Sam. I was noting with my fellow readers how, in the Scripture, we see that God is the only being to whom people are called upon to render great praise. But in RCC tradition (of which Tolkien was an adherent) such praise is rendered to saints in accordance to their hagiology.

There are shades of meaning to that word which exist outside a religious context. That, I think, is the intended use of the word in LOTR.

However, the way Galadriel is regarded by other characters in that book is kind of comparable to veneration. She’s highly honored in the story, yes, but I don’t think anybody would claim that other characters worship her.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

There are shades of meaning to that word which exist outside a religious context. That, I think, is the intended use of the word in LOTR.

However, the way Galadriel is regarded by other characters in that book is kind of comparable to veneration. She’s highly honored in the story, yes, but I don’t think anybody would claim that other characters worship her.

Yes and that reminds me of another point I was going to make, namely Sacramentals. In Judaism, the things used to worship Yahew are treated with respect, as a kind of side affect of their being Holy and dedicated to his service, essentially treating them in a disrespectful way, is essentially sacrireligious since they are related to Yahew. Kind of like how people would see treating someone stuff disrespectfully as an insult like putting your feet up on your grandparents nice coffee table etc.


Anyway that same logic applies to the people of God, the saints etc. There are many passages that use the analogy of people as instruments of service set apart for the worship of Yahew etc. And that goes doubly for the Church Triumphant!


And on the negative side of things this Incidentally, this also is the reason behind the Raca passage of Matthew 5:22. That is often translated "fool", but people proficient in Aramaic and Syriac say it is derived from "spitting" to show contempt. Kind of like the verse from Proverbs 17:5, "He who mocks the poor insults their Maker;", and Lev 19:14 "You must not curse the deaf or place a stumbling block before the blind, but you are to fear your God. I am the LORD."

 

[trulytheone]

In the ancient world and in most traditional religions, sacrifices are essential in the worship of latria. So for Roman Catholics, there is no danger in offering the Blessed Virgin long and elaborate praises as long as those praises stay within the bounds of dogma and that the Eucharist is not offered to her.

 

[Michie]

What??

In the ancient world and in most traditional religions, sacrifices are essential in the worship of latria. So for Roman Catholics, there is no danger in offering the Blessed Virgin long and elaborate praises as long as those praises stay within the bounds of dogma and that the Eucharist is not offered to her.

 

[Davidnic]

What??

One of the essential things that makes the difference in veneration from the worship due to God is the bloodless sacrifice of the Eucharist.

And we never offer that to Mary. I think that's something non-catholics don't understand about how we view things.

 

[narnia59]

EDIT: You are in the Catholic Forum

I am a Protestant. As such, I have a huge problem with giving Mary any veneration beyond that of any ordinary person.
But my question has to do with a potential concern among the Roman Catholic Church. Does such a concern exist?

I would point out that your view of not giving Mary any veneration beyond that of any ordinary person is in conflict with Scripture.

When Mary goes to see Elizabeth, the culture would have required Mary to give deference to Elizabeth due to her old age, not to mention her stature given she was carrying John the Baptist, a child foretold by an angel. But that is not what happens. Elizabeth asks the question, "Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" She saw Mary's visit as a great honor and privilege given to her. And lest we think she was out of line, Scripture is also clear that she was filled with the Holy Spirit when she spoke.

So I'm not sure why anyone would conclude that we should treat or consider Mary like any ordinary person. We're given the model in Scripture, and we should have the same attitude that Elizabeth did.

 

[royal priest]

I would point out that your view of not giving Mary any veneration beyond that of any ordinary person is in conflict with Scripture.

When Mary goes to see Elizabeth, the culture would have required Mary to give deference to Elizabeth due to her old age, not to mention her stature given she was carrying John the Baptist, a child foretold by an angel. But that is not what happens. Elizabeth asks the question, "Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" She saw Mary's visit as a great honor and privilege given to her. And lest we think she was out of line, Scripture is also clear that she was filled with the Holy Spirit when she spoke.

So I'm not sure why anyone would conclude that we should treat or consider Mary like any ordinary person. We're given the model in Scripture, and we should have the same attitude that Elizabeth did.

There is no indication there that Elizabeth honored Mary for anything in and of herself.
She was marvelling as Mary had done at God's kindness toward her.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

There is no indication there that Elizabeth honored Mary for anything in and of herself.
She was marvelling as Mary had done at God's kindness toward her.

That's you're twisted interpretation of scripture. You see why some people trust a church being around for just about 2 thousand years over private interpretations?

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

How about Mary's own Magnificat?

 

[royal priest]

How about Mary's own Magnificat?

How can the Magnifcat demonstrate Mary's sinless state when she calls God her Savior?

 

[ripple the car]

How can the Magnifcat demonstrate Mary's sinless state when she calls God her Savior?

Royal, this might help;

Where do we find the Immaculate Conception in Scripture?

 

[AvilaSurfer]

There is no indication there that Elizabeth honored Mary for anything in and of herself.
She was marvelling as Mary had done at God's kindness toward her.

Careful. Forum.

 

[thecolorsblend]

How can the Magnifcat demonstrate Mary's sinless state when she calls God her Savior?

I don't see how the Magnificat relates to Our Lady's sinlessness. There's also the reality that God IS her savior. We should be careful to note that Our Lady wasn't sinless of her own merit; rather, she was given a special grace by God.

Our Lady was a sinless human.

 

[narnia59]

There is no indication there that Elizabeth honored Mary for anything in and of herself.
She was marvelling as Mary had done at God's kindness toward her.

I'm not sure where you can get that view from the statement "Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" unless you've started with the conclusion you want and then try to back your way into it. Elizabeth is clearly contrasting her own lowliness in comparison to Mary. The statement Elizabeth makes by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit stands for itself, and we would be wise to heed it and hold Mary in the same regard.

The reality is that we can never honor Mary to the extent that God did by choosing her to be His mother. So how can it be possible to honor her too much?

 

[☦Marius☦]

One of the essential things that makes the difference in veneration from the worship due to God is the bloodless sacrifice of the Eucharist.

And we never offer that to Mary. I think that's something non-catholics don't understand about how we view things.

We offer a partition of the Eucharisin memory of the theotokos in the Eastern Rite. Not sure how it would constitute worship even if it a part was separated for her. She would be looked at as partaking just as we partake. As for offering it to her... I don't know. I mean it is technically offered to us. Not in the same sense as being an offering for God but I don't know if the word offering automatically constitutes worship.

 

[chevyontheriver]

How can the Magnifcat demonstrate Mary's sinless state when she calls God her Savior?

It's actually quite easy to understand. One can be saved from falling into a hole before the fact or after the fact. One can be pulled out of a hole or one can be guided around the hole. Both are saved. A sinner is saved after the fact, after having fallen. Mary was saved from what would be a life of sin before the fact. She recognized that she was saved and calls God her savior. Rightly so. We all need saving.

Serious praying Catholics, at least those who follow the Liturgy of the Hours, pray the Magnificat every day and are thus quite aware that Mary had a savior. It's not some super-secret Protestant thing that Catholics had no clue about. Mary is saved. Magnificently.

 

[thecolorsblend]

How do you understand the RCC's notion of Theotokos to be?

Theotokos. God-bearer. Mother of God.

It's a statement saying that the child to whom Our Lady gave birth is fully God and fully man. It's a statement of belief in Our Lord's hypostatic union. A lot of heresies (especially in the first century) deny the Incarnation. Sooner or later, they will deny that the Divine took on mortal flesh. And there were a lot of cultural reasons for that too. But we can skip that stuff for now.

Point being that a lot of Protestants hear "Theotokos" (or "God-bearer" or "Mother of God" or other similar titles) and panic. For some reason. Many of them are not aware that the titles are intended to be statements of belief in the Incarnation. Specifically, that Our Lord was fully God and fully man.