This is an English translation of the Latin. Often the Latin form for 'veneration' is translated into English as 'worship', even though they're different things. Since the Latin tongue is far more complex than English, the implication here with 'worship' merely means 'honour', as that document from VII would have read in the original. Unfortunately, we cannot always take the English-language, nor the French really, and so on, for a completely accurate reading. In fact, the translation on my shelf of that same passage reads "Because we have thus entered deeply into the history and heritage of salvation, Mary unites the faithful in her person and magnifies the most important doctrines of our faith: for when she is the focus and subject of preaching and devotion, such as our rightful veneration of her, she prompts the faithful directly toward her Son."
Jumping in late here. I think Marian veneration should be an issue of pastoral concern. The Reformers were wisely responding to a Marian cultus that had become extremely unhealthy. Mass illiteracy rates combined with saintly cults had made for what had for many become clear idolatry. As John Calvin said, One does honor the Madonna by making her greater than her Son. Probably the greatest example today that comes to mind (my father's family are Mexican-American Catholics) is how Marian veneration in Latin American contexts can functionally become a Marian religion that excludes the Son. That being said the extreme Puritanical phobia of Mary is absurd. She is the Mother of God and if we have a high view of the Incarnation then on a metaphysical level she is quite literally the most amazing person to ever live on earth. The English Reformers held that she was perpetually virgin (the extreme antiquity of this view to me verifies its validity though ought not be dogma as I can't imagine any other reason why it would arise so early), called her Our Lady and that she was Blessed. It is impossible to have a truly Catholic, Reformed and Biblical view of Mary and not have a high view of her. Requesting intercession is a whole other can of worms but popular Protestantism has an extremely unhealthy view of Our Lady.
Okay but we're not talking about "often", or some people, or yours and my thoughts on what something means. We're talking about the official Vatican translation. So would you agree that the official Vatican translation teaches manifest heresy?
I understand what you are saying, I thought the same thing you did when I first read it. However, after re-reading it a few times, I understand what the RCs are saying. Subject, not object. It doesn’t say Mary is the object of worship, therefore Catholics don’t worship Mary. No heresy. Here are some Google definitions. Subject- a person or thing that is being discussed, described, or dealt with. subject= Blessed Virgin Mary Object- a person or thing to which a specified action or feeling is directed.= God So replace subject with "dealt with" in Lumen Gentium #65 and re read it. Lumen Gentium, #65: "Having entered deeply into the history of salvation, Mary, in a way, unites in her person and re-echoes the most important doctrines of the faith: and when she is being dealt with in preaching and worship she prompts the faithful to come to her Son" In other words, what the Vatican is attempting to say is this: "When we deal with or discuss Mary during preaching and worship (i.e. Catholic Mass), She guides us to Her Son.
The word "subject" has two meanings: -subject vs. object in the English syntax -subject/topic in the English grammar You know which meaning is used from the construction of the sentence: -"The subject in a sentence points at the object." -"The subject (topic) of the New Testament is the life and resurrection of Jesus." -"The subject of the movie Bourne Identity is Jason Bourne." The possessive particle "of" indicates which meaning we are using. Since the subject/object usage is obscure, it only takes meaning when both words, subject and object, are invoked in a sentence. When ONLY the word "subject" is present, the grammatical meaning is assumed to be used, not the syntactical one. The LG #65 passage clearly says, Mary the subject OF preaching and worship -- the entity we preach on, and offer worship towards.
By the way, here is this passage in the official Latin: Lumen Gentium, #65: Maria enim, quae, in historiam salutis intime ingressa, maxima fidei placita in se quodammodo unit et reverberat, dum praedicatur et colitur, ad Filium suum Eiusque sacrificium atque ad amorem Patris credentes advocat. The bolded part has two verbs: praedico = to preach colo = to worship (By the way, venero = venerate, so it does not say she is "venerated".) Third person passive voice of praedico and colo is praedicatur = is preached colitur = is worshipped So the official Latin says literally, Mary "is preached and worshipped".
I'm going to have to retract my quotation anyways. I read the front page and it is a "formally equivalent" translation... not surprising, as the old Missal was translated with the same dull philosophy. However, colitur doesn't only mean "worship", in fact it means to "honour" or "worship" depending on the circumstance.
You should read about Santeria. It's an occult religion practiced in South America that combines Catholic and pagan folk beliefs. They put curses on people in the name of Jesus and Mary. I knew a woman who became a born-again Christian who no longer practiced it but said she had relatives who were still in to it. Apparently, her father was afraid that someone they knew at work was putting curses on them because his hair was falling out, and they frequently consulted a Santerian priest to remove these spells from time to time.
Respectfully, I would like to submit my opinion that Latin American Catholicism is a far reach from Santeria. Santerians are mostly pagans, and worship saints as gods. The Roman Catholic Church has never, ever, professed nor taught the divinity of anyone other than Almighty God, the Blessed Trinity. And I do not want to be rude, but I have spent a few years in research. I can honestly say this.
I agree with Cameron on this. I don't think RC's high view of Mary is to blame for Santeria (can't speak for other "marian religions" though). Doing a little googling, Slavery is the issue here. African slaves forcibly brought to the New World carried their religion with them and disguised it from their masters by using saints as a front for the gods they were actually worshipping. It really just depended on what the prevailing religion of the slaveholders was. This seems similar to Voodoo and Hoodoo here in the South. Mary and the Saints were the low hanging fruit, thats the only reason why thy were picked imo.
Santeria is a form of paganism, voodoo, and witchcraft which has some appropriated RC saints and imagery. There isn't anything in RC doctrine which supports Santeria. Lowly Layman & Cameron are exactly right- the Gods and Goddesses from the Old World got a Catholic veneer to hide the actual occult practices and worship.
re: Santeria Well aware that Santeria is not as common as some Protestants think, as it is limited to areas that have large Afro-Latino populations as it is functionally a West African religion (related to Haitian Vodou). As such it is not found natively in places like Mexico or Central America. However there is a level of syncretism that does occur in many communities. Saintly intercession (pro ora nobis) turns into functional saint worship. In these pastoral contexts, I would not highlight even lawful Marian veneration.
Vodou, Santeria, and related West African Diasporic traditions are prime examples of the need for nuance and anthropological understandings of culture in missions. This is why I don't like the 7th Ecumenical Canons: dulia and latria are highly relative to culture. Thus, so called "universal" mandates on what is acceptable is ridiculous, shortsighted ethnocentrism. The high RC view does not just lead to pagan syncretism, per se, but trying to give it as is to cultures with different understandings of worship vs reverence, if any such distinction exists to them at all, is a recipe for disaster.
By contrast our parish which has always leaned heavily towards a healthy amount of Ritualism (stations of the cross, icons, crucifix, lady chapel, etc...) celebrates/honors Mary quite highly but I don't think for 10 seconds it would approach anything the Reformers recoiled from.
I asked my friend who is practically a RC canon lawyer to defend this and she just told me Lumen Gentium is heretical. .________.
This is part of the reason why I could not be Roman Catholic though I did consider it a few times. The whole edifice of "The Church has never changed" is increasingly difficult to hold up under historical scrutiny.
Agreed. They love to say that non-Catholics can be saved but bring up unam sanctam and watch 'em squirm. It's impossible to say that the RCC has never changed with a straight face.