Hurrah, Botolph! When I was RCC I went to a number of very large parishes (in the 1000s) and I never saw Mary worshipped, ever! Nor heard a homily recommending to do that!
Indeed so. The Mariolatry in the RCC tends to involve fringe groups like the Fifth Dogma people (who are pushing for St. Mary to be declared co-redemptrix as a matter of dogma based on the visions of Ida Peerdeman, which the RCC authorities determined were “unworthy of belief.”) Also, the Medjugorje people, and unacceptable devotional practices in some lands, for example, relating to Our Lady of Guadalupe.
Now in all fairness to everyone I have never heard a Roman Catholic say that, even one of the Fifth Dogma people, and I have to confess I find this remark incredible. If some random Catholic said that to you, they were an idiot, and if some Catholic has posted that on line, I should want to see a link to it. Because that’s shocking, and even the Co-Redemptrix people I have not seen go that far.
I hear Medjugorje has some connection to the slaughter of Orthodox Christians. Jim Caviezel (the one who played Christ in The Passion) says this: https://www.medjugorjemiracles.com/...ould-have-never-played-christ-in-the-passion/
Medjugorje has nothing to do with the Orthodox Church. A group of RC teenagers ascended a hill, got stoned on marijuana, and were exploited by the Franciscan province which has been seeking to maintain its grip on churches like the parish of St. James in Medjugorje which was supposed to have been surrendered to diocesan clergy over a hundred thirty years ago, after Hezegovina was liberated from Turkish rule and became a part of Austria-Himgaria.
I keep coming across quotes which portray Rome’s devotion to Mary in a less benevolent light than appears to us on the outside. Was going to post it here but just started a thread to collect all such aberrant devotions to Mary in a single place, here: https://forums.anglican.net/threads/cases-of-aberrant-devotions-to-mary-in-the-roman-church.3830/
I don't deny that I've seen persons or groups within RCC books or quotes that seem to blaspheme Jesus, however since it had nothing to do with church teaching, I saw it as aberrant behavior esp since Vatican II (which all human beings easily do) or misunderstanding/wrong way of phrasing things (esp for current culture). Yes, I very heartily disagree with some doctrines/canon laws/doings of the hierarchy. That's why I left the church. Papal supremacy wasn't warranted by the bible or early church history. That said, I do agree with much they teach and I learned valuable things (not only what not to do) for my spiritual journey. I don't regret the 18-19 years I was in the Roman church. I don't agree that vitriol is desired by Our Lord for any wrong-headed ideas of humans. If humans truly deny God in any way (even with Satanism) they will have chosen the consequences. I don't have the right to judge them!
I certainly don't want to be responsible for vitriol directed at Rome, and appreciate some of the pro-life stances and some doctrines they have stood for. But people seem to see them in far too rosy a light, which is why it's important to bluntly show and express the full range and depth of beliefs prevalent in their camp. You say these exceptions aren't definite Roman doctrine, but even there I am not so sure. The fact of the matter is that nobody knows what the full Roman doctrine on Mary is; the guy who argued for her as mediatrix of the graces (or whatever) cited Papal encyclicals. The cooks among them have no check or boundary they feel they cannot cross. It is a far worse situation than even in the Reformers' era. I also think that many people don't realize just how bad some aspects of their theology are. Nobody knows just how far the rabbit hole of Mariology goes down in that camp, and we need to know that, because many in our camp view them with unrealistic glasses. That being said, I still don't think we should send vitriol their way, but it is also healthy to recognize that there are serious institutional crises at the core of Rome's theology (which doesn't even take into account the socialist "eco-theology" that is now on the ascendant).
I appreciate your stance on Rome, stalwart. I think so often we Anglicans forget that our church - the institutional one of course, not the one founded by Christ - was founded because of wayward Roman theology. I myself constantly find myself looking to Rome, which is almost certainly a result of my extremely Anglo-Catholic parish church, and it's something I'm really trying to stop. It's as though we have no faith in our own position, constantly looking for external validation and recognition. I think, with limits of course, we really need to adopt a much more anti-Roman stance again (in the nicest possible way), and discourage both extreme Romanism and extreme evangelicalism, both of which are ever-present realities in the Anglican communion at the moment. We mustn't be afraid to say that, subject to appropriate doubt, we are the "purest" church about (something Welby clearly doesn't think much of, considering how he "doesn't care" if people convert to the RCC). Rant over! Carry on!
I agree that there are numerous and big problems with that institution. There are some things in the catechism of Trent that make me nauseous. Although there are some things I very much disagree with from Vatican II and it's aftermath, much of the current catechism is very good IMHO (it's on the official vatican website-I forget what that is). The teachings on Mary, Theotokos, are in it. Most serious Romans I know have read it (and it's a large book). I do know what you are saying tho'. It's concerning when such a huge institution seems/is teaching important false things. Even with Mary, what St Liguori wrote really puzzles me and I know that I'm not understanding him or the times or.......There have been some amazingly holy people coming from there tho' which would indicate that it's not all bad and I'm sure there are some really good (and saved) people there too. There are also some obvious areas in the whole history of the Roman bishops from the end of the first century, that show the extent of the greed and thirst for power men can get!
The best thing about Cardinal Newman was his brother, who translated Robinson Crusoe into Latin so that all the schoolchildren learning Latin against their will would have more interesting reading material. I heard Cardinal Newman went to Rome initially due to a joint Lutheran-Anglican diocese in Jerusalem. If the Anglicans accepted a bishop without the historic episcopate, that would wreck the whole premise of the Oxford Movement. But the CofE insisted that the Lutheran bishop get an Anglican ordination, making Newman's schism pointless.