Skip to main content

why do Evangelicals think Catholics worship Mary?

To answer this, try what scientists call an "operational definition" of worship.

For an Evangelical, it consists of speaking words, singing songs, etc.

For a Catholic in the Latin rite, it consists of adoring the Body, Blood, soul, and diivinity of Christ the Lord.

In other words, Evangelical worship is, by Catholic standards, mediocre... even though it may surely be heartfelt.

Given that mediocrity, when Catholics comport in the same way to Mary, it looks like doing something in regard to her that should be directed exclusively to God.

I think the ecumenical thing to do is to invite an Evangelical to fall down (together with me), prostrate in worship of God...

It won't feel right (I predict) because there is no Bodily Presence of the Lord.  So he or she may decline.  In fact I may not feel that it is appropriate, except before Jesus in the Eucharist.
Labels:

Comments

Leo White said…
Why "in the Latin rite"? Something wrong with those other guys?

I think not!
10:00 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dembski's "specified compexity" semiotics and teleology (both ad intra and ad extra)

Integral to Dembski's idea of specified complexity (SC) is the notion that something extrinsic to evolution is the source of the specification in how it develops. He compares SC to the message sent by space aliens in the movie "Contact." In that movie, earthbound scientists determine that radio waves originating in from somewhere in our galaxy are actually a signal being sent by space aliens. The scientists determine that these waves are a signal is the fact that they indicate prime numbers in a way that a random occurrence would not. What is interesting to me is the fact that Dembski relies upon an analogy with a sign rather than a machine. Like a machine, signs are produced by an intelligent being for the sake of something beyond themselves. Machines, if you will, have a meaning. Signs, if you will, produce knowledge. But the meaning/knowledge is in both cases something other than the machine/sign itself. Both signs and machines are purposeful or teleological...
Post a Comment
Read more

particular/universal event/rule

While listening to a recorded lecture on Quine's Two Dogmas of Empiricism, it occurred to me that every rule is in a way, a fact about the world. Think about baseball: from the p.o.v. of an individual player, a baseball rule is not a thing but a guide for acting and interpreting the actions of others.  But this rule, like the action it guides, is part of a concrete individual --i.e., part of an institution that has come into existence at a particular place and time, has endured and  may eventually go out of existence.  The baseball rule, as a feature of that individual, is likewise individual.  The term "baseball rule," on the one hand, links us to a unique cultural event; it can, on the other hand, name a certain type of being.  In this way, it transgresses the boundary between proper and common noun. If there were no such overlap, then we might be tempted to divide our ontology between a bunch of facts "out there" and a bunch of common nouns "in here....
Post a Comment
Read more