# Mary worship in the Catholic Church **URL:** \ **Category:** Apologetics\ **Created:** [March 27, 2026, 1:53pm UTC](https://forum.catholictalk.net/t/mary-worship-in-the-catholic-church/3236 "2026-03-27T13:53:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 139
**Author:** ![Mathetria](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex015/user_avatar/forum.catholictalk.net/mathetria/32/1562_2.png) [@Mathetria](https://forum.catholictalk.net/u/Mathetria)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2026, 7:12pm UTC](https://forum.catholictalk.net/t/mary-worship-in-the-catholic-church/3236/139 "2026-07-13T19:12:35Z")
> [@Cade\_One](#): > > I have asked you specifically about what you believe about a few different things and you do not care to have a conversation about what you believe. I never I said or implied that I _“do not care to have a conversation about what I believe.”_ In fact, I’ve explicitly said: > [@A Newfound Respect for Pope Francis (relating to Prophesy & Visions)](https://forum.catholictalk.net/t/a-newfound-respect-for-pope-francis-relating-to-prophesy-visions/3831/28): > > If you’d like to name the principle you’re using, and address the textual correction of the Medjugorje message, I’m ready to continue the conversation. And I’m happy to answer your new question about the parchment — I just need you to address those earlier points first so we’re not evaluating new claims on an undefined foundation. > [@Mathetria](#): > > I’m happy to talk about testing spirits, necromancy, divination, and discernment criteria, but none of that addresses the claim you made. You said it would be “a step too far” for God to send or authorize Mary to deliver messages. That is a universal statement about divine action, and universal statements require a theological principle. > > **So before we move to other topics, I’m asking again:** > What theological principle grounds that belief? I’m sincerely willing to discuss my beliefs, but not in a way that helps you avoid answering the question already on the table. > [@Cade\_One](#): > > > [@Mathetria](#): > > > > You’ve said that it would be “a step too far” for God to send or authorize Mary to deliver messages, and you’ve repeated that claim several times. > > _SECRET_ Messages or Future Predictions! > > Not a step too far for God (if He wanted to), but rather a step too far for my belief that a claim is authentic. You keep saying that I am saying that God could not do such a thing, which I am not making that claim… > [@Cade\_One](#): > > Oh my gosh! I am describing characteristics of how some view various claims. > > When Pope Francis called traditional Catholicism “rigid” was he using an official category for a different type of Catholic Faith? No. > > Neither am I. I never argued that your position is God _could not_ do X. In fact, I explicitly said: > Cade, yes — of course God _could_ choose Mary for any mediation He wills. That’s never been in dispute. My question has never been about whether God _could_ do so, but about the principle behind **your** claim that God _would not_ or _does not_ do so. Regarding “secret messages", you said: > Secret messages, which I consider different than (capital “P”) _Private Messages_. There is a difference. > > You don’t have to call it (small “P”) public revelation, but it is being presented as an elevated form of private revelation that, as a follower of Christ, I do not feel comfortable with. You continue treating “secrets” as a distinct category separate from private revelation. But the Catholic Church does not recognize the distinctions you’re making. Messages from Mary — including content meant to be withheld for a time — are all classified as **private revelation** in Catholic theology. A “secret” describes **timing of disclosure** , not a different kind of communication. If Mary communicates content to a visionary — whether immediately public or temporarily withheld — it is still a **message** and still a **private revelation**. Catholic theology does not divide Mary’s communications into “secret messages” versus “private messages.” That distinction doesn’t exist in the Church’s categories. And the idea of an “elevated form of private revelation” doesn’t exist either. The Church has only two categories: – **public revelation** , which ended with the Apostles. – **private revelation** , which is one single category. Warnings, conditional prophecies, secrets, instructions, and so on, are not separate kinds of revelation — they _are_ the message itself. They are simply different forms of content within a single act of private revelation. You’ve also said before that “a step too far for me” refers to your personal belief about the authenticity of modern apparition claims. But you haven’t addressed the point I made in response: a personal belief about what God _would not_ do is still a statement about **God’s action** , not merely about your comfort level. So when you say, _“I do not believe that God sends Mary to deliver x,”_ that is a claim about what God does or does not do. And when you say, _“Listen to God through Mary? Yeah, that is a step too far for me,”_ you are expressing the same conclusion — that God does not send or authorize Mary to deliver messages. That is why I’m asking for the theological principle behind that belief. **So the question remains:** Since the Church doesn’t support the distinctions you’ve been making, what remains is the principle itself. What theological **principle** grounds your claim that God would not authorize Mary for this mediation? If you have one, share it. If you don’t, that’s fine — just say so. --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.catholictalk.net/t/mary-worship-in-the-catholic-church/3236)._