Posted on 12/14/2014 11:57:21 AM PST by ealgeone
The reason for this article is to determine if the worship/veneration given to Mary by the catholic church is justified from a Biblical perspective. This will be evaluated using the Biblical standard and not man’s standard.
Or I will collect more crickets.
Each cricket signifies a victory for Jesus and the Holy Scriptures.
As does a single question as an “answer”
Ok metmom, it’s on you to prove the assumption of Mary...LOL!
The irony is revealing.
Actually, no, it doesn’t. People might assume that, but it doesn’t. Again, being important to one man - the Pope - does not mean it is “major dogma of the Catholic Church.”
Sooooo....to be sure we understand......the pope has spoken ex-cathedra, from the chair of peter, we can count these on one hand, this is now official dogma of the catholic church, all have to believe this....and you say: "being important to one man - the Pope - does not mean it is “major dogma of the Catholic Church.”. "
So we can just dismiss these as irrelevant teachings??
I wonder what other catholics have to say about this?
And I like jello!
“If you have issues with the rules or moderation in the Religion Forum please use the “Private Reply” button at the bottom of this post.”
I sent you a private reply on October 28. You never responded.
“Sooooo....to be sure we understand......the pope has spoken ex-cathedra, from the chair of peter, we can count these on one hand,”
You can? I think the pope has spoken ex cathedra many times. People - even Catholics - make the mistake of thinking it only happens in infallible statements because that was part of the definition of Papal Infallibility.
“So we can just dismiss these as irrelevant teachings??”
Is that what I said?
“I wonder what other catholics have to say about this?”
I doubt you do. And if you ask you’ll probably forget to include that part where I said you had to compare it to the totality of Catholic teaching to know it’s importance. Facts, they get in the way of Protestant anti-Catholics.
And which OT writings materially provided for further conflative and complimentary writings being discerned and added to the body of wholly inspired writings, as were wholly inspired ones before it, without an infallible magisterium. But which purported infallible Romish teaching are not ( wholly inspired of God), regardless of RC assertions.
And it is Scripture which, as written, manifestly became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
Without which the church would have no foundation, and to which authority it is to be subservient. The church established its Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, following Christ who did so. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44, etc.) Even though both men and writings of God are so regardless of what men think.
Some RCs have been shown these Truths time and time again, yet continue to waste time by having us engage their sophistry again and again.
Again, what’s happening is that someone is making an unsubstantiated that we are to accept on face value as Truth, and then it’s up to us to disprove something that was never proved to begin with.
What a can of worms that opens up. Anyone can claim anything and expect others to believe it for no reason.
What a racket Catholicism has going.
Yep, SOP
It certainly was answered
Let's review the greek word used for worship in the NT at the start of this thread.
4352 proskynéō (from 4314 /prós, "towards" and kyneo, "to kiss") – properly, to kiss the ground when prostrating before a superior; to worship, ready "to fall down/prostrate oneself to adore on one's knees" (DNTT); to "do obeisance" (BAGD).; suggests the willingness to make all necessary physical gestures of obeisance.]
In no instance in the NT accounts regarding Mary do we have anyone falling down on their knees before her, or offering prayers to her. For that matter no one does this for Peter or Paul or James or any of the Apostles or disciples.
In Matthew 2:11 we have the maji come to Joseph and Mary's home to see Jesus. The account in Matthew notes clearly:
After coming into the house they saw the Child with Mary His mother; and they fell to the ground and worshiped Him. Then, opening their treasures, they presented to Him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.
The maji could have fallen down before Mary, but they didn't.
They could have brought her gifts but they didn't.
They had ascertained it was His star they were looking for....not a star for Mary.
Everything about this account is about Christ.
Any "devotion" to Mary is unbiblical.
Paul really focuses us on these "devotions" to other people in 1 Corinthians 1:11-12
For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. 12Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” 13Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
What if we substituted Mary for Paul in these verses?
For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Mary’s people, that there are quarrels among you. 12Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Mary,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” 13Has Christ been divided? Mary was not crucified for you, was she? Or were you baptized in the name of Mary?
See how it sounds when you sub in Mary's name? Blasphemous.
The Holy Inspired biblical examples show we are to worship Him and Him only.
Nope. Not a Catholic.
The logic is simply logic. You can’t take an English non-biblical word and use its Latin form to define it now.
So, then you are saying here that there is a difference between worship/prayer and veneration, and that Catholics know what it is.
You don't accept appearance as being what's different. You do suggest above that there is a difference.
What IS different in your mind?
Seven week turn around. Not that I’m being picked, of course. LOL!
Have a nice day. And I honestly mean it.
I have no problem with your post #2411.
I agree with it.
Each person has their own conscience. I can't answer for someone else, least of all a Pope. He is still part of the unbroken line of succession from St. Peter. I am a Roman Catholic. I was away for awhile, but chose to return. I've never looked back!
Every human being must someday account for their actions on earth, when they stand before God. They must answer for themselves, not I.
You can? I think the pope has spoken ex cathedra many times. People - even Catholics - make the mistake of thinking it only happens in infallible statements because that was part of the definition of Papal Infallibility.
You do understand ex-cathedra.....? Right? Or do I have to provide that for you also?
Catholic sources indicate he has spoken ex-cathedra either three times or two times...two of these both involve Mary.
There have been 3 instances of an officially declared Papal Infallible doctrine. The first was in 1854, when Pope Pius IX declared the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (The blessed Virgin Mary was conceived in St. Anne's womb free from original sin), then in 1870 at the first Vatican Council when the doctrine of Papal Infalliblity was officially declared to be true, and then in 1950 by Pope Pius XII when he declared the doctrine of the Assumption (the blessed Virgin Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven).http://www.catholicbible101.com/papalinfallibility.htm
Seeing how your first premise, that the pope has spoken ex-cathedra many times has again been proven wrong, I discount the rest of your post.
Amazing catholics don't know their stuff.
Yes, excellent investment for Satan, and his minions!
.
You were sent a copy and paste of the message sent to you on 10/28/2014.
“Seven week turn around. Not that I’m being picked, of course. LOL!”
It was replied to as soon as we saw your FR mail.
If you wish to continue this discussion use FR mail.
You’ve been admonished before for off topic comments.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.