Mary

[MichaelFilo]

[quote]"Neither," he replied, "[b]but as commander of the army of the LORD I have now come[/b]." Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, "What message does my Lord [a] have for his servant?" -NIV[/quote]

[quote]And he said, Nay; [b]but as captain of the host of the LORD[/b] am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my Lord unto his servant? -KJV[/quote]

[quote]And he answered: No: but [b]I am prince of the host of the Lord[/b], and now I am come. -Douay-Rheims[/quote]

This was not God. If the first two don't convince you, then the third should. A commander, a captain, and a prince of the angels. However, knowing you, I will go a bit further.

[quote]Seraphim
These are the highest order or choir of angels. They are the angels who are attendants or guardians before God's throne. They praise God, calling, "Holy Holy Holy is the Lord of Hosts". the only Bible reference is Isaiah 6:1-7. One of them touched Isaiah's lips with a live coal from the altar, cleansing him from sin. Seraphim have six wings, two cover their faces, two cover their feet, and two are for flying.

Cherubim
Cherubim rank after the seraphim and are the second highest in the nine hierarchies or choirs of angels. The Old Testament does not reveal any evidence that the Jews considered them as intercessors or helpers of God. They were closely linked in God's glory. They are manlike in appearance and double-winged and were guardians of God's glory. They symbolized then, God's power and mobility. In the New Testament, they are alluded to as celestial attendants in the Apocalypse (Rv 4-6). Catholic tradition describes them as angels who have an intimate knowledge of God and continually praise Him.

Thrones
Thrones are the Angels of pure Humility, Peace and Submisssion. They reside in the area of the cosmos where material form begins to take shape. The lower Choir of Angels need the Thrones to access God.

Dominions
Dominions are Angels of Leadership. They regulate the duties of the angels, making known the commands of God.

Virtues
Virtues are known as the Spirits of Motion and control the elements. They are sometimes referred to as "the shining ones." They govern all nature. They have control over seasons, stars, moon; even the sun is subject to their command. They are also in charge of miracles and provide courage, grace, and valor.

Powers
Powers are Warrior Angels against evil defending the cosmos and humans. They are known as potentates. They fight against evil spirits who attempt to wreak chaos through human beings. The chief is said to be either Samael or Camael, both angels of darkness.

Archangels
Archangels are generally taken to mean "chief or leading angel" ( Jude 9; 1 Thes 4:16), they are the most frequently mentioned throughout the Bible. They may be of this or other hierarchies as St. Michael Archangel, who is a princely Seraph. The Archangels have a unique role as God's messenger to the people at critical times in history and salvation (Tb 12:6, 15; Jn 5:4; Rv 12:7-9) as in The Annunciation and Apocalypse. A feast day celebrating the Archangels Michael, Gabriel and Raphael is celebrated throughout the Church Sep 29. A special part of the Byzantine Liturgy invokes the "Cherubic Hymn" which celebrates these archangels and the guardian angels particularly. Of special significance is St. Michael as he has been invoked as patron and protector by the Church from the time of the Apostles. The Eastern Rite and many others place him over all the angels, as Prince of the Seraphim. He is described as the "chief of princes" and as the leader of the forces of heaven in their triumph over Satan and his followers. The angel Gabriel first appeared in the Old Testament in the prophesies of Daniel, he announced the prophecy of 70 weeks (Dn 9:21-27). He appeared to Zechariah to announce the birth of St. John the Baptist (Lk 1:11). It was also Gabriel which proclaimed the Annunciation of Mary to be the mother of our Lord and Saviour. (Lk 1:26) The angel Raphael first appeared in the book of Tobit (Tobias)Tb 3:25, 5:5-28, 6-12). He announces "I am the Angel Raphael, one of the seven who stand before the throne of God." (Tb 12:15)

Principalities
In the New Testament Principalities refers to one type of spiritual (metaphysical) being which are now quite hostile to God and human beings. (Rom 8:38; 1 Cor 15:24; Eph 1:21; 3:10; 6:12; Col 1:16; 2:10, 15) Along with the principalities are the powers (Rom 8:38; 1 Cor 15:24; Eph 1:21; 1 Pt 3:22; 2 Thes 1:7); and cosmological powers (1 Cor 15:24; Eph 1:21; 3:10; Col 2:15);Dominions (Eph 1:21; Col 1:16) and thrones (Col 1:16). The clarity of the New Testament witness helps see that these beings were created through Christ and for Him (Col 1:16). Given their hostility to God and humans due to sin, Christ's ultimate rule over them (ibid) expresses the reign of the Lord over all in the cosmos. This is the Lordship of Christ, which reveals God's tremendous salvation in conquering sin and death at the cross, and now takes place in the Church. (Eph 3:10)

Angels
These angels are closest to the material world and human begins. They deliver the prayers to God and God's answers and other messages to humans. Angels have the capacity to access any and all other Angels at any time. They are the most caring and socius to assist those who ask for help.
[/quote]

[url="http://www.catholic.org/saints/anglchoi.php"]Catholic online[/url]

The angel was most likely a Dominion.

God bless,
Mikey

[guardsman]

Catholics do not worship Mary. I've been accused of this many times and never understood why. But after reading some of these posts, I'm starting to understand why people think that. Perhaps SOME Catholics worship Mary. This Catholic has reserved the word "worship" for God, alone. I suggest we ALL do. It is not correct to say that in the year 2005. We know the difference between worship and veneration.

[MichaelFilo]

[quote]Devotion to Our Blessed Lady in its ultimate analysis must be regarded as a practical application of the doctrine of the Communion of Saints. Seeing that this doctrine is not contained, at least explicitly in the earlier forms of the Apostles' Creed, there is perhaps no ground for surprise if we do not meet with any clear traces of the cultus of the Blessed Virgin in the first Christian centuries. The earliest unmistakable examples of the "worship" -- we use the word of course in the relative sense -- of the saints is connected with the veneration paid to the martyrs who gave their lives for the Faith[/quote]

First lines for this article from [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15459a.htm"]New Advent[/url] about Mary.

St. Alphonsus Liguori is also one of the reasons. There should be a distinction made in the different meanings of the word. Again, my language is archiac.

Edit: We do worship Mary in the sense that Joshua worshipped that angel. For all your KJV friends, you can use that to point out the difference in word usage. By the way, the word changed only because of the Protestant heresy.

God bless,
Mikey

Edited May 5, 2005 by MichaelFilo

[guardsman]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='May 5 2005, 06:48 PM'] By the way, the word changed only because of the Protestant heresy.[/quote]
This statement is very true, but the fact of the matter is, the meaning of the word has changed. We, as Catholics who understand the difference, need to use proper terminology. Protestants who read this may misunderstand and believe we worship Mary in place of God. We should not use the word worship when talking about veneration of Mary. It is no longer correct. This has nothing to do with watering down Mary, and everything to do with how the American English language has changed.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='May 5 2005, 08:18 PM']




This was not God. If the first two don't convince you, then the third should. A commander, a captain, and a prince of the angels. However, knowing you, I will go a bit further.



[url="http://www.catholic.org/saints/anglchoi.php"]Catholic online[/url]

The angel was most likely a Dominion.

God bless,
Mikey [/quote]
My Navarre Catholic bible footnotes says it was the Lord. I'll stick with it.

[argent_paladin]

I just checked it out and in the original Hebrew, the word translated as "worshiped" is literally "prostrated". So, it is really a difference of translation you are arguing about. Joshua prostrated himself before the angel. It is amatter of interpretation as to whether that is equivalent to worship.

And here is what John Paul II said about the medating role of Mary (from Redemptoris Mater):
"She puts herself "in the middle," that is to say she acts as a mediatrix not as an outsider, but in her position as mother."

" she also has that specifically maternal role of mediatrix of mercy at his final coming,"

"In this phase too Mary's maternal mediation does not cease to be subordinate to him who is the one Mediator, until the final realization of "the fullness of time," that is to say until "all things are united in Christ" (cf. Eph. 1:10)."

Since John Paul the Great refers to her mediation exclusively in relationship to her role as mother of Christ, does that mean that he "waters down" the faith? And, you risk falling into heresy if you deny that Christ is the one Mediator "I am the Way...".

John Paul also maintains the distinction between devotion and worship:
"The piety of the Christian people has always very rightly sensed a profound link between devotion to the Blessed Virgin and worship of the Eucharist."

Are you saying that he is wrong to do this? It is an important and useful distinction. Because, as you say, Mary is second to God, but the gulf between Creator and created, even the most blessed of creation, is still near-infinite.

Catholics never worshipped Mary, in the sense of worship due to God alone. Thomas Aquinas, the Church's greatest theologian, writing over 700 years ago said:
[quote]I answer that, Since "latria" is due to God alone, it is not due to a creature so far as we venerate a creature for its own sake. For though insensible creatures are not capable of being venerated for their own sake, yet the rational creature is capable of being venerated for its own sake. Consequently the worship of "latria" is not due to any mere rational creature for its own sake. Since, therefore, the Blessed Virgin is a mere rational creature, the worship of "latria" is not due to her, but only that of "dulia": but in a higher degree than to other creatures, inasmuch as she is the Mother of God. For this reason we say that not any kind of "dulia" is due to her, but "hyperdulia."[/quote]
So, Catholics have been making distinctions for hundreds of years. And note, he calls here a "mere rational creature". This is not watering it down. This is the eternal truth of the Church.

[journeyman]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='May 5 2005, 05:05 PM'] Actually, I have to disagree. The word Lord is rendered as both "Lord" (reference to God) and "lord" (reference to the angel). The NIV even makes this distinction. The fact is, either one would still point to the angel. Why? Because " Joshua fell prostate to the ground in worship, and said to him, "What has my lord to say to his servent." "

Now notice, Joshua fell to the ground at the sight of the angel. And then he said (to the angel) "What has my lord to say to his servent". He would be a rather awkward man if here to see an angel, fall to the ground worshipping God and turn to the angel and say, "What has my lord to say to his servent?". Even more awkward would it be if one were to suppose he asked this of God while the angel was there, because then the angel replies. Aside from that, the question is clearly directed to the angel, since the passage goes


He fell prostate and said to the angel who just talked to him. I don't see how you can see that he was worshipping anyone but that angel. This whole thing makes just as much sense from the NIV point of view, since there is a note about it. However, whether the word is in reference to God or the angel, the words are directed towards the angel. The prostaration would also be thus.

God bless,
Mikey [/quote]
Wasn't it fairly common, when speaking with the messenger of one of higher status, to speak as if one was speaking to the principal, rather than to the messenger?

While Joshua may have been speaking to an angel (and that may not be certain, since Abraham was also visited by the Lord in the appearance of a man, along with two messengers), at the beginning of Chapter 6, the conversation continues, and the dialogue is between the Lord and Joshua

[MichaelFilo]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='May 5 2005, 09:34 PM'] My Navarre Catholic bible footnotes says it was the Lord. I'll stick with it. [/quote]
Like I said, whether it be Lord or lord, he is still worshiping (falling prostrate) before the angel. The meaning is the same when worshipped is used, as when newadvent.org says worship. That is the point. The term was valid, if not so today.


Joshua was still speaking to the messanger. He asks for the Lord's message "What has my Lord to say to his servant?". While it is true, Chapter 6 says the Lord is directly speaking to Joshua, that would be an ancient writing style. The angel comes to tell Joshua to remove his sandals. Then he commences to speak to him about the Lord's message. It is not uncommon for the writers of old to omit the messanger, and direct the message as if being told by the sender. There is no reason to believe Joshua took off his sandals, and the angel left, and God started talking. God had told Moses to take off his shoes, and talked to him. This angel continued to talk to him. However the author changes the message to bypass the messanger. Again, it can be found in other examples in the Bible. If you care enough, I'll look, but tommorow.

There is no reason to believe that Joshua did not worship the angel (and this worship, which could mean prostrate, is understandably the worship we give up to Mary although I will refrain from using that word, I simply am stating that it's usage in the older meaning is valid, which really there should be no arguement about).

Just one last thing, journeyman. It cannot possibly be the Lord in the guise of a man, or angel. For one, the angel is "captain of the host of the Lord". That would make no sense if it were the Lord speaking. That would be like God refering to himself as "the Son of Mary whom God created". That would simply be excessive.

God bless,
Mikey

[corban711]

[quote]I answer that, Since "latria" is due to God alone, it is not due to a creature so far as we venerate a creature for its own sake. For though insensible creatures are not capable of being venerated for their own sake, yet the rational creature is capable of being venerated for its own sake. Consequently the worship of "latria" is not due to any mere rational creature for its own sake. Since, therefore, the Blessed Virgin is a mere rational creature, the worship of "latria" is not due to her, but only that of "dulia": but in a higher degree than to other creatures, inasmuch as she is the Mother of God. For this reason we say that not any kind of "dulia" is due to her, but "hyperdulia."[/quote]

thank you for that quote from St. Thomas. I will keep that one for future reference! i agree with just about everyone else here though, to say worship in modern times would not be correct because how we now define it. it doesn't matter if we changed the words due to a heresy, the fact is the meaning has changed and we should use it in it's proper context, our culture. and like others pointed out, of course worship did not mean the worship given to God alone. that is a great reason to not use the word worship for Mary or the saints...to have to explain "worship for God" or "worship of Mary and the saints" is more confusing and time consuming when the trouble could be saved easily by using two different words which the Church accepts.

[MichaelFilo]

I agree, but simply, even the NAB (the bible used in the US by Catholics as the norm) uses worship in that way. That is all I am saying.

God bless,
Mikey

[guardsman]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='May 5 2005, 09:19 PM'] Like I said, whether it be Lord or lord, he is still worshiping (falling prostrate) before the angel. The meaning is the same when worshipped is used, as when newadvent.org says worship. That is the point. The term was valid, if not so today. [/quote]
I guess I would say if The Blessed Virgin shows up at your house, in person, it would be OK to prostrate yourself before her. As a showing of respect to her being Mother of the Church. But unless she does appear to you, the example of someone prostrating themselves to an angel has no bearing on whether or not we 'worship' Mary. We don't. It sounds like some people are trying very hard to come up with excuses to worship Mary. We have enough worshipping to do with Jesus alone. We could never worship Him enough. We can honor Mary in our hearts without being guilty of idolatry, but we can't worship her. She would say the same thing, I'm sure. She was human, humble, and never asked to be worshipped. And the catechism says we don't worship her, so that pretty much decides the whole deal.

[MichaelFilo]

I think you are not hearing something here. I am not trying to worship Mary in the sense you understand. In fact, I recanted because I instead was arguing for the correct usage of the word as opposed to the modernized usage of the word, not the honor due to Mary. Falling prostrate is a form of worship in the old sense of the word. No one wants to worship Her like God. That wouldn't make sense. In fact, it would be a contradiction, because She is as great as God makes Her.

God bless,
Mikey

[guardsman]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='May 5 2005, 10:00 PM'] I think you are not hearing something here. I am not trying to worship Mary in the sense you understand. In fact, I recanted because I instead was arguing for the correct usage of the word as opposed to the modernized usage of the word, not the honor due to Mary. Falling prostrate is a form of worship in the old sense of the word. No one wants to worship Her like God. That wouldn't make sense. In fact, it would be a contradiction, because She is as great as God makes Her.

God bless,
Mikey [/quote]
I hear ya, man. We don't worship her, we just think she is #1 on the Saints list. Mother of God. Theotokos. Mediatrix of all Graces. But we only worship Jesus. We are in agreement on this one. Cool.

[musturde]

I feel yah mikey, many protz just don't understand the worship can equal venerate/adore.

[journeyman]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='May 5 2005, 09:19 PM'] Like I said, whether it be Lord or lord, he is still worshiping (falling prostrate) before the angel. The meaning is the same when worshipped is used, as when newadvent.org says worship. That is the point. The term was valid, if not so today.


Joshua was still speaking to the messanger. He asks for the Lord's message "What has my Lord to say to his servant?". While it is true, Chapter 6 says the Lord is directly speaking to Joshua, that would be an ancient writing style. The angel comes to tell Joshua to remove his sandals. Then he commences to speak to him about the Lord's message. It is not uncommon for the writers of old to omit the messanger, and direct the message as if being told by the sender. There is no reason to believe Joshua took off his sandals, and the angel left, and God started talking. God had told Moses to take off his shoes, and talked to him. This angel continued to talk to him. However the author changes the message to bypass the messanger. Again, it can be found in other examples in the Bible. If you care enough, I'll look, but tommorow.

There is no reason to believe that Joshua did not worship the angel (and this worship, which could mean prostrate, is understandably the worship we give up to Mary although I will refrain from using that word, I simply am stating that it's usage in the older meaning is valid, which really there should be no arguement about).

Just one last thing, journeyman. It cannot possibly be the Lord in the guise of a man, or angel. For one, the angel is "captain of the host of the Lord". That would make no sense if it were the Lord speaking. That would be like God refering to himself as "the Son of Mary whom God created". That would simply be excessive.

God bless,
Mikey [/quote]
I think we may be saying the same thing about the method of speaking to or through messengers . . . I phrased it from the recipient/speaker's point of view, you phrased it from the writer's writing style point of view. I've read enough bad historical fiction that the style of writing used in Joshua could have involved either a messenger or a principal. Most folks didn't address his / her majesty in the first person - secular or divine majesty.

I'm not up on all the places where sandals were required to be removed. There is here, and Moses with the burning bush. It was Jehovah God in the bush, stating Moses was on holy ground. Absent other examples, would it make sense to assume only God would say that? Does the appearance of an angel carry with it the same "circle" of holy ground?

The appearance of God in man's form I was thinking of was in Genesis 6, when God, accompanied by two others, informed Abraham (and Sarah, who was not listening from the kitchen) they would have a son within the year. In that book, no sandals were removed, but Abraham was more than a merely polite host.

A "voluntary" prostration may well be a sign of worship. In earlier societies, it was expected when appearing before the king. While one may prostrate themselves before a Nero, since it was expected and failure to do so was punishable by death, would one be worshipping simply because of the action?