Not only did Jesus not deify His mother Mary, but He held His fellow Israelites in higher esteem than His own brothers and sisters [born to this "eternal virgin"], AND His mother Mary. Yet this abomination of a pope, and jew, deifies Mary, in VIOLATION of God's Law:
Mat 12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brothers stand without, desiring to speak with thee. Mat 12:48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brothers? Mat 12:49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brothers!
In the sense of having parental authority over Jesus, no, Mary was not His mother. There are several Bible verses which explicitly show this to be the case.
"And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" -Luke 2:48 & 49
The question of course is, why would Jesus, as a child, wander away from his earthly parents and reply to their concerns only with "I must be about my Father's business"?
"While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.'But He said, On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it." -Luke 11:27 & 28, NASB
Now, here is an amazing thing indeed. A woman essentially tells Jesus, "Blessed is Mary's womb and body." But Jesus replies, "On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it."
The question then is, if Jesus is God's Son and obviously so blessed, why would Mary not be more blessed if she has parental authority as His mother? The answer is quite clear:
Mary is not the real mother of Jesus, since He existed before her. As Paul writes in Colossians 1:16, "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him".
Jesus is the one who created Mary. But Paul says more pertaining to Mary:
"That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." -Philippians 2:10 & 11
Obviously Mary fits this category since it specifically names every area of creation, and thus will bow her knee to Jesus and confess Him as Lord. You see, Catholics are sure to be puzzled by the same question Jesus used to confound the Pharisees, who saw things from a physical standpoint only:
"While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions." -Matthew 22:41-46
You see, it was prophesied that the Messiah would be descended from David. Yet David in the Psalms prophesied of the Messiah, calling Him Lord. As Jesus pointed out, if David is the physical ancestor of the Messiah, shouldn't he then have authority over the Messiah by parental right? But this is not the case, for David in spirit calls Him Lord.
Therefore, we see another system at work. It may surprise some to learn that one of the idols worshipped by the Israelites that God condemned them for in the Old Testament was called "the Queen of Heaven" who was worshipped by the burning of incense and the sacrificing of cakes and drink offerings, similar to the Catholic mass.
But read the Scriptures for yourselves:
"The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead
their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink
offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger. Do they provoke me
to anger? saith the LORD: do they not provoke themselves to the confusion of
their own faces? Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, mine anger and my
fury shall be poured out upon this place, upon man, and upon beast, and upon the
trees of the field, and upon the fruit of the ground; and it shall burn, and
shall not be quenched."
"Then all the men which knew that their wives had burned incense unto other gods, and all the women that stood by, a great multitude, even all the people that dwelt in the land of Egypt, in Pathros, answered Jeremiah, saying, As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the LORD, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil. But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine. And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven, and poured out drink offerings unto her, did we make her cakes to worship her, and pour out drink offerings unto her, without our men?" -Jeremiah 44:16-19
Mary-worship as it occurs in Catholisim today is an old evil that has been around for thousands of years. God punished the disobedient Israelites for it horribly. If you read the rest of the chapter, you will see that for this abomination God sent upon the Israelites the sword and famine, made their land desolate and cursed, and sent the entire nation of Israel into captivity to be ruled by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.
This captivity resulted in Israel losing all their wealth and treasures including the ark of the covenant, and not until 70 years after they had been carried into captivity were they able to begin rebuilding Jerusalem and its temple, which Nebuchadnezzar had utterly destroyed.
Matthews 12 on Jesus's Brothers and Mother Mary
CATHOLICS SAY MARY WAS A VIRGIN ALL HER LIFE
Mat 12:44 Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. Mat 12:45 Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation. Mat 12:46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood without, desiring to speak with him. Mat 12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. Mat 12:48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? Mat 12:49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! Mat 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Seeing these verses with Strong's numbers, we see that the KJV translators once again took liberties with the Word of God by translating "adelphos" as "brethren" in three verses, and translating the very same word as "brothers" in the key verse:
The red letter part of the Holy Bible are Jesus' own words, and here we have Matthew documenting that Jesus used both a literal and a figurative reference to both His mother and His brothers. Both the words "brethren" in 12:46 and "brother" in 12:50 are translated from the same Greek word "adelphos" [Strong's #80], so both should have been translated as either brother or brethren. Translating it as two different words conveys the false impression that "brethren" is not a reference to His literal brothers.
From the context we can see that His literal mother Mary and her sons, His literal brothers, were outside, and that He viewed those who were inside who "shall do the will of my Father" as His figurative mother and brothers and sisters.
The Holy Bible tells us that the Catholic Church is in serious error here.CATHOLICS SAY MARY WAS A VIRGIN WHEN SHE CONCEIVED JESUS Only the following two Scriptures refer to Mary as a virgin. Neither John nor Mark ever wrote such a thing:
Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin [parthenos] shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Luk 1:27 To a virgin [parthenos] espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's [parthenos]'s name was Mary.
The definition of the word "parthenos" as "maiden", that it is of unknown origin, and that it means virgin only my implication, raises questions about what the Catholic Church uses as the source for its claim:
Furthermore, Luke is referring to Isaiah's prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 which also fails to establish that the prophecy was about a virgin rather than a maiden:
The word "virgin" is translated from the Hebrew word "almah", which can also mean "damsel" or "maid" as well as "virgin":
This word "almah" also appears in Exodus 2:8 translated as "maid" and in Psalms 68:25 as "damsels", neither of which appears to be a reference to a virgin:
Exo 2:8 And Pharaoh's daughter said to her, Go. And the maid went and called the child's mother. Psa 68:25 The singers went before, the players on instruments followed after; among them were the damsels playing with timbrels.
Had Isaiah intended this to be a literal reference to virgin, he would have used the Hebrew word "bethulah" which appears 48 times in the Holy Bible as "virgin", and which he did use in Isaiah 62:5:
Isa 62:5 For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee.
Final proof that "almah" does NOT mean virgin is Genesis 24:16 where both "almah" and "bethulah" appear in the same sentence:
Gen 24:16 And the damsel [almah] was very fair to look upon, a virgin [bethulah], neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up.
The original context of these two Hebrew words proves that the word "virgin" was added to the definition of "almah" in order to meet a political objective.
The Catholic Church is politics, not religion. Christ was born as a pure Israelite, not a mamzer, and not of a "virgin" mother.
From Sword of the Spirit:
We know from scripture that Mary was indeed a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. Mary was shocked when the Angel of the Lord told her she would give birth to Jesus because she had never had sexual relations with a man: As we see in Luke 1:34.
Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be seeing I know not a man?
The word know in this verse is a Jewish idiom referring to sexual relations. Thus, know not a man = never had sex with a man. Christ was indeed born of a virgin. Did Mary remain a virgin throughout her entire life? What Is recorded in the scriptures concerning this? Lets begin with Matthew 1 :24-25.
Matthew 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought Forth her firstborn son and he called his name JESUS.
in verse 24 we see that Joseph did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and he took Mary to be his wife. In verse 25 we see that Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary until after Jesus was born. Matthew 1:25 And KNEW HER NOT till she brought forth her firstborn son. Here we see again the Jewish idiom knew, meaning Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary until she had brought forth her first born son.
NOTICE THE WORD TILL
It does not say Joseph knew her not all of her life. It says Joseph knew her not TILL she brought forth her first born son. .Till = until after.
NOTICE THE WORDS FIRSTBORN SON
This verse does not say she brought forth her only begotten son, it says her FIRSTBORN SON. This suggests that she gave birth to other children in her life time.
DID MARY HAVE OTHER CHILDREN?
The Roman Catholic teaching Is that Mary had no other children and she remained a virgin throughout her life, calling her ever virgin. What do scriptures say about other children of Mary?
Acts 1:14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren
Matthew13:55 is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon. and Judas?
Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
The Roman Catholic argument here Is that these verses refer to Jesse's cousins -does it mean his cousins?Let us take a closer look. Shall we?
The previous verse( Mat 13:55) makes mention of Jesse's brothers, It then calls them by name, among those named as his brothers were James,and Joses
The following verses(Mark 15:47, Luke 24:10 ) say that Mary was the mother of James,. and Joses
Mark 15:47 And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld where he was laid.
Luke 24:10 it was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.
Another problem with the Roman Catholic claim is that Jesus's brothers did not believe in him as the Christ, the son of God, his cousins did believe.
John 7:1 ï¿½ After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: For he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him. 2 Now the Jews' feast of tabernacles was at hand. 3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. 4 For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. 5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.
David even prophesied about this
Psalms 69:8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children. 9 For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.
Another popular Roman Catholic argument is that Jesus was referring to fellow Jews, or his Christian followers when he said brethren.
John 2:12 ï¿½ After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.
Galatians 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. 19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
NOTICE in the above verse Galatians 1:17-19, that PETER WAS NOT the Lords brother ,and that JAMES WAS HIS BROTHER. Does this mean Peter was an unbeliever? Of course not
MARY, AND SIN
In 1854 A.D. the immaculate conception of Mary ( to be utterly without sin ) was proclaimed by Pope Pius IX, and became a Roman Catholic doctrine.
Was Mary really without sin?
We know from scripture that Mary was unclean for 7 days after Jesus was born, on the 8th day Jesus was circumcised, then Mary : spent the next 33 days fulfilling her purification. After her purification she then went to the temple and offered sacrifice for her sins.
Luke 2:21 ï¿½ And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb. 22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; 23 (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) 24 And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.
Why would Mary offer a sacrifice for her sins if she was without sin?
Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.
Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered onto the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned
Mary would most certainly be included in the word all
When Pope Pius XII declared the Assumption of Mary to be an article of faith in 1950, the Catholic Church in Jerusalem then quickly sold the tomb of Mary to the Armenian Church.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that Mary is Advocate. However, God states in his word that Jesus Christ is our only Advocate.
1 John 2:1 My little children, these things write i unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, JESUS CHRIST THE RIGHTEOUS:
In a Catholic prayer called the "Hail Holy Queen" which is part of the " Rosary" we read, Hail, Holy Queen, Mother of mercy; our sweetness, and OUR HOPE! The word of God plainly says Jesus is our hope.
1 Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Savior, and LORD JESUS CHRIST, WHICH IS OUR HOPE;
The Roman Catholic Church has given Mary the title of Mediatrix. Who does Gods word say has that task of Mediator?
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and ONE MEDIATOR between God and men, the man CHRIST JESUS;
" The concern was, if Mary is Immaculately conceived, then Jesus Christ is not a universal redeemer, because he didn’t redeem Mary. Scotus responded with the concept of preservative redemption. .... Technically, Mary was not redeemed. Because to redeem is to buy back and to buy back presupposes bondage, or slavery. Mary never had a bondage to buy back. She was saved by the preemptive merits of Jesus Christ." http://irishanddangerous.blogspot.com/2006/12/feast-of-immaculate-conception.html
Having, for all practical purposes, removed God's Second Commandment, Rome found herself in the position of having to cover her tracks. After all, a church that worships Mary, numerous dead people (called 'saints') and a wafer of bread, must redirect attention and strive to justify her idolatry.
To be sure, Rome categorically denies that Catholics worship Mary. What they do is to dissimulate. . . to assign and re-define other terms for the worship they offer to her. Rome's deceptive claim is that she "worships God, but only venerates Mary and the saints." To get an accurate picture, we need to examine both secular and 'sacred' (i.e., official Catholic) documentation.
To accomplish her deception, Rome invented her own form of 'correctspeak.' She did this by redefining terms that all mean one thing - worship. Rome uses "worship" with respect to God, or Jesus Christ, and "venerate" with respect to Mary and dead people. . . as if "venerate" had a completely different meaning than "worship."
This may come as a surprise, even to many Roman Catholics, but Rome teaches that Mary, as 'Mother of God,' existed from the very beginning of creation. This false teaching is, however, perfectly consistent with Rome's evident plans to make Mary a part of the Holy Trinity - or should I say, Holy Quadrinity? The "logic" is obvious: Rome teaches that Mary is the Mother of God (and must therefore have existed from the beginning), she "mediates all graces (which, being necessary for salvation makes Mary necessary for salvation), and she was "without sin" (making her the spiritual equal to Jesus). Did I say "logic?" Sorry about that.
"At the first reading for the feast of the Presentation of Mary says: 'The LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his work, the first of his acts of long ago. Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth. (Prov 8:22-23)."
"Mary's role is not just an individual one, but she also assumes a broader role as a minister of salvation for the whole human race." (The Essential Mary Handbook: A summary of Beliefs, Devotions, and Prayers. Liguori Publications, 1999)
Golly gee! And here I thought God's Word says that Jesus Christ was the firstborn of all creation! But no, if you read the implication in this quote, Rome applies the passage in Proverbs to Mary. And again, I always believed that Jesus Christ was the only "Minister of salvation for the whole human race." Well, at least it is what the Bible teaches. But Rome - no, not Rome. She clearly gives those roles to Mary instead.
How does Rome explain her gross distortions of Scripture? Consider this for example:
"As well, Mary's motherhood of Christ and of us can be seen as an expression of the motherly care of God, who in Isaiah is seen as both Father and Mother (Isa 49:15, 66:13) (DCC§56)" (The Essential Mary Handbook: A summary of Beliefs, Devotions, and Prayers. Liguori Publications, 1999, Page 5)
Do the Scriptures offered support the argument that God is both a Father and a Mother? Let's look and see.
"Can a woman forget her nursing child And have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may forget, but I will not forget you". (Isaiah 49:15)
"As one whom his mother comforts, so I will comfort you; And you will be comforted in Jerusalem." (Isaiah 66:13)
Is God saying He is both male and female here? Not hardly. Is he saying he is a mother? No, but he does say that even a mother can forget her own child! Anyone with even a smattering of Scripture knowledge is aware that God very clearly states that he is Father - period. Jesus confirms it - period. This whole idea of a "father-mother god" is of pagan origin. It is what you could call 'New Age' thinking - except that there isn't too much that is new in it. Thus it is not really so surprising to find it arising in a modern day church that is the embodiment of paganism.
This issue was brought to the attention of well-known Roman Catholic apologist Karl Keating. See his response below.
Take a few minutes to compare the teaching of Rome with the Word of God. Keep in mind that Rome does agree with the Bible when it says that grace is necessary for salvation (Acts 15:11; 2 Timothy 1:9; Ephesians 2:5, 8-9). You will soon notice that Rome's idea of grace and the Bible's idea of grace are completely different!
One of Rome's favorite arguments for the perpetual virginity of Mary is that, "For Jesus to have been born free of Original Sin, requires that his mother also be free of Original Sin." On the surface this seems plausible. But lets look a little closer.
The obvious logic here is that an immaculate conception requires that the parent have had an immaculate conception. If we follow this argument to its logical conclusion, we would be forced to say that, "For Mary to have been born free of Original Sin, requires that her father and mother be free of Original sin!"
Why So Long to Declare the Doctrine?
The Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was declared by Pope Pius IX in 1854. If this doctrine was so clear, and was supported by the 'unanimous consent of the Fathers.' (which it was not), why did it take Rome almost two thousand years to say so? Historically, it was not even a subject for debate until the late 14th century, when Pope Sixtus IV proscribed it for the diocese of Rome, and for that dioceses only. (Saint Joseph Annotate Catechism, copyright 1981, Page 70, #48.) Rome's 'answer' to this question is:
"These two dogmas (the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption) had always been true. But the Church grows in her clear realization of what is revealed truth, and this takes time. Moreover, these two Marian dogmas provide an effective means of leading the modern world to Jesus through his Mother." (The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism, Copyright 1981 by John A. Hardon, S.J.)
This statement of Rome deserves very, very careful evaluation. Rome says that the dogmas "had always been believed." This is a lie. Study the writings of the 'Fathers of the Church' and you will find that none of them were acquainted with such a doctrine. Rather, you will find some of them pointedly saying that Mary was a normal human being just like us - a sinner who needed to be saved - a sinner who died because of her sins - a normal mother who lived in a normal marriage with Joseph, with whom she had several sons and daughters.
It is only my opinion, but I am convinced that Rome just assumes Catholics will believe anything they are told. Sadly, this is true for many Catholic people! Rome must also assume that Catholics are too stupid, or too disinterested to check-up on what Rome says. Again, sad to note, Rome's assumptions appear accurate. Since well-programmed Catholics really believe that their salvation is Rome's business and not their own, why should they bother checking? Wouldn't that be a waste of time? And doesn't Rome lay a string of anathemas (curses) on anyone who challenges her supreme authority?
My poor, duped Roman Catholic friends and acquaintances, are, as Jesus declares, blind followers of blind guides. Read about this in Matthew 23: 16-46. Where you see the words, 'scribes' and 'pharisees' substitute 'cannon lawyers' and 'priests.' The picture is pretty clear.
Next, note the statement that the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are supposed to "... lead(ing) the modern world to Jesus..." The question I ask is, How?! The simple fact is that they do exactly the opposite! What with Mary already the 'mediator of all grace,' and with grace being necessary to salvation, these nefarious dogmas direct one's attention away from Jesus and to Mary. If you don't believe it, just attend a novena some time and see for yourself. In that direction, let's examine just one of the Roman Catholic prayers to Mary:
Regina Coeli (A Prayer to Mary)
"Hail Holy Queen, Mother of mercy, hail, our life, our sweetness, and our hope! To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve! To thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this vale of tears! Turn then, most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us; and after this, our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus! O clement, o loving, o sweet Virgin Mary." (The New Saint Joseph Baltimore Catechism, Official Revised Edition, copyright 1962).
Who Gets the Honor?
The Roman Catholic Church denies the charge that she give Mary far more honor than Jesus Christ. Do you believe this denial? Before you answer, compare the following list of Roman Catholic feasts in honor of Jesus and Mary.
The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism
573. How does the worship of God differ from the worship of angels and saints? The worship of God is adoration, that of the angels and saints is veneration. Only God is to be adored; all others are to be honored as creatures whose dignity depends entirely on God." (The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism, John A. Hardon, S.J., Page 128-129: Copyright 1981 and bearing Imprimatur, Imrpimi Potest, and Nihil Obstat)
Notice how this catechism gives different meanings to adoration and veneration. . . as if they were quite different things entirely. Notice, too, how it tacitly admits that worship is offered by Catholics to angels and 'saints' (dead people of good repute in the eyes of men). Now take a peek at what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say!
The Catholic Encyclopedia
Adoration Adoration refers to the external act of worship or honor given to a thing or person of
excellence. (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Revised and Updated, 1986; Thomas Nelson Publishers)
Veneration of the Saints Special worship, called dulia, is due to the saints and angels...." (The
Catholic Encyclopedia, Revised and Updated, 1986; Thomas Nelson Publishers)
So it appears that even the Catholic Encyclopedia confirms that worship, adoration, and veneration are synonymous terms. And this, despite Rome's efforts to portray them as different things altogether. When you try to justify error, it is almost inevitable that some things will fall through the cracks; this is one of them. If the editors of that volume catch on, look for a radical re-definition in the next edition!
Pope Paul VI
Finally we come to the most official and trustworthy voice of all - Pope Paul VI, who had a great deal to say about the worship of Mary. He did not mince any words, either, but came right out and used the term "worship" plain as day. Consider the following citations: