Mary

[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?

[CanCath]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='May 6 2005, 12:00 AM'] 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]
Correct usage of the word???? Give me a break!

I believe that you need to realize that today's CORRECT usage of the word WORSHIP is different then what it was before... Now, I know you like using archaic language, you've said it about 10 times, but the reality is, if you want to be an apologetic and/or evangelizer, you are going to have to start using the words of today. And today, Worship cannot be used in the same way as it was before...

Honestly, if someone came to me TODAY and asked "Do Catholics worship Mary?". I would have to say NO. Not because I don't understand the true meaning of the word, or how it was used many years ago, but simply because I know that that person meant Worship in the way we worship God.

This is most definitely NOT watering down the importance and love the Church gives to the Most Holy Mother of God. It is simply properly explaining it.



Also, about the scriptures you have quoted.... Is it not possible to prostrate and worship God in the presence of the angel?? Like, in my understanding it true that the angel is present, but couldn't Joshua have simply been praising God in front of the angel? Prostrating himslef because of the emense presence of God?

[MichaelFilo]

Ok... follow your logic. The angel answer's Joshua's question and says who he is. Then Joshua falls to his knees before God. Then he talks to God while the angel stands by him. Then the angel talks. That makes sense. We do it all the time... right? Wrong. My point is, just look up the verse and it still uses that version of the word. But the point is, I will refrain from using the word worship to confuse people.

God bless,
Mikey

[cmotherofpirl]

There is no angel, Joshua is falling before the LORD GOD!

Edited May 6, 2005 by cmotherofpirl

[MichaelFilo]

Ok Cmom. The "commander of the hosts of the Lord" is the Lord. That is sound logic. Actually, no it isn't. Cmom, restating something over and over doesn't make you right. You are more senior to the debate table, you know well enough saying the same thing over and over is really denial.

God bless,
Mikey

[cmotherofpirl]

Michael, I am not debating , I am quoting my Catholic Bible.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

Actually, Cmom is very correct... the "angel" Joshua falls prostrate before is the Lord-- if you bring up that very passage with almost any well-read protestant that's the first thing they'll say.

Lastly, to add in my own two cents.. Historically, the word "worship" was merely a generic term for "devotion"... it didn't hold the exclusivity that it does today. Historically worship of adoration was distinguished from worship of veneration. St. Thomas Aquinas developed the distinction between "latria" and "dulia". With latria referring to the manifestation of submission & dependence shown towards the excellence of an uncreated person (i.e., adoration... of God). And dulia referring to the manifestation of reverence towards the excellence of a created person (i.e., veneration of Mary & the Saints in Heaven). Why dulia? Because excellence also deserves acknowledgement--we give gold medals at the olympics, awards for academic achievements, etc., and don't see this as violating any Commandments. We adore God in latria, and venerate the saints in dulia. That is the critical distinction.

However, today, the word "worship" tends to be somewhat exclusive and thus is a turn off to most protestants... if you're going to use it, you have to define what you mean by it to show that we, as Catholics, can and do distinguish between what is unique of God and secondary and subordinate (i.e., through God) in Mary and the Saints.

[journeyman]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='May 6 2005, 08:27 AM'] Ok... follow your logic. The angel answer's Joshua's question and says who he is. Then Joshua falls to his knees before God. Then he talks to God while the angel stands by him. Then the angel talks. That makes sense. We do it all the time... right? Wrong. My point is, just look up the verse and it still uses that version of the word. But the point is, I will refrain from using the word worship to confuse people.

God bless,
Mikey [/quote]
verse 13 - saw one who stood facing them - sword drawn - Joshua asks are you one of us or of our enemies

(this is not the only passage in the Bible where holiness/divinity/angelic is not recognized at first sight)

verse 14 - answer - neither - I am the captain of the host of the Lord

(throughout history, into the present day, the governmental leader is the commander in chief - it was as true of kings and emperors as it is of the president of the United States)

(the generals are also captains of the host - so I'm not saying you're not right - and this is in fact an angel - I'm noting that the language is not ultimately dispositive) . . . (and the fact that the captain of the host of the LORD is capitalized and Joshua's response "what has my lord to say to his servant" (lower case) does support the idea that this is not the LORD) (and footnote 4 says this section recounts (1) The command of the Lord, through his angel, to Joshua)(as a PFC, I'm going to salute both the general and the commander in chief)

verse 15 - Remove your sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy -

(the only other incident I could find like this - very short search - was Exodus - Moses and the burning bush - is there any question that the LORD was present in the bush? are there any other angelic appearances which sanctified the ground in their presence?)
(while it isn't explicitly stated, is it unreasonable to presume that once the angel is identified Joshua's vision clears and he senses the actual presence of the Lord, and prostrates himself in worship (proper both under the archaic and the modern use of the term?)

chapter 6, verse 2 - and to Joshua the LORD said

(admittedly, the Old Testament is not a strict chronological account, but we have the instruction to remove shoes/sandals because this is holy ground in 5:15, the last verse in that chapter (chapters and verses weren't numbered, so there is really no break here in the original scroll?) and in 6:2, the LORD said)

(the idea that there was an angel serving as a herald of the LORD, making sure Joshue was properly set up for the discussion of strategy, is not unreasonable.)

but that does not lead inevitably to a conclusion that Joshua fell in worship of the angel - it is equally plausible that he fell in worship of the LORD

and you're absolutely correct, I have no personal experience talking to angels or the LORD, so I can't say it happens this way all the time, or any of the time . . . I'm limited to applying the words and text as they have been handed down to me . . . and this passage running from the end of one chapter into the next seems to be recounting a single incident, not two separate incidents