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.
You are dishonoring the Blessed Mother who is without sin by your words and arrogant viewpoint of how Catholics honor our Blessed Mother. Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of our Church and our spirtutal mother.
Check out post 258 to see that mean attitude of some towards the Catholic Church’s veneration of the Mother of the Son of God.
May you be a servant of Christ and as obedient and sinless as His Mother.
How does our veneration of Mary and the saints relate to our worship of God?
The honor we give to God alone is properly called adoration, the highest honor we can give. The honor we give to Mary and the saints is called veneration. Proper veneration of the saints does not interfere with the worship due to God, but rather fosters it. “Our communion with those in heaven, provided that it is understood in the fuller light of faith according to its genuine nature, in no way weakens, but conversely, more thoroughly enriches the latreutic worship we give to God the Father, through Christ, in the Spirit.” With this understanding, we see that proper veneration of Mary does not detract from worship of God. Even as the Mother of the Savior, Mary has a place that is in every way subordinate to and dependent upon that of her Son, who is the one mediator between God and humanity. The maternal role that Mary fulfills toward us as Mother of the Church “in no wise obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows His power.”
What Mary does for the salvation of the human family does not come from her own power, but from a gift of divine grace that is bestowed on her through her Son. All the salvific influence that she bestows on us is produced “not from some inner necessity, but from the divine pleasure. It flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on His mediation, depends entirely on it and draws all its power from it.”38 Mary in no way replaces Christ. Rather, her role is to bring us to Christ, as is illustrated in Mary’s admonition at the wedding feast of Cana, “Do whatever he tells you” (Jn 2:5)
http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/prayers-and-devotions/mary-and-the-saints/frequently-asked-questions-about-blessed-virgin-mary.cfm
Please read Mark 7:
5 So the Pharisees and scribes questioned him, “Why do your disciples not follow the tradition of the elders* but instead eat a meal with unclean hands?”
6 He responded, “Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me;
7 In vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines human precepts.’
8 You disregard God’s commandment but cling to human tradition.” 9 He went on to say, “How well you have set aside the commandment of God in order to uphold your tradition! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother shall die.’ 11 Yet you say, ‘If a person says to father or mother, “Any support you might have had from me is qorban”’* (meaning, dedicated to God), 12 you allow him to do nothing more for his father or mother. 13 You nullify the word of God in favor of your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many such things.” 14 He summoned the crowd again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand.
15Nothing that enters one from outside can defile that person; but the things that come out from within are what defile.” 16*
17* e When he got home away from the crowd his disciples questioned him about the parable. 18He said to them, “Are even you likewise without understanding? Do you not realize that everything that goes into a person from outside cannot defile, 19* f since it enters not the heart but the stomach and passes out into the latrine?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20“But what comes out of a person, that is what defiles. 21g From within people, from their hearts, come evil thoughts, unchastity, theft, murder, 22adultery, greed, malice, deceit, licentiousness, envy, blasphemy, arrogance, folly. 23All these evils come from within and they defile.”
I may say to you, “Until we meet again, God bless you.” Does that necessarily mean after we meet again, God curse you?
no their heresy was translated the Bible into their native language and CHANGING THE WORDS to fit their own interests.
AMDG
got to go to work guys and gals
don’t any of you have a job??
You are on the Religion Forum on FREE Republic, on a NON-Caucus thread. The voicing of opinions here is not trolling or Machiavellian. Psychopathic? Please.
Anonymity is the way of the Internet, actually preventing certain domineering types (ahem!) from forestalling disagreement through intimidation.
The Book of James was altered. But isn’t it enough that Luther would remove books entirely so others couldn’t read them? Besides, how many people in 420 until Gutenberg could actually read and write?
Latin was the lingua franca of Jerome’s time, and continues to be the language of law and medicine. Latin is still used today to describe many religious tenets, as are words that are specifically Greek.
English is wholly lacking, as it is a mongrel language, full of contradiction, idiom, and is imprecise.
A bible in Latin provided access to the entire world, the entire canon, in one language, instead of requiring people to learn many, and in the future, unspoken languages.
It wasn’t translated to deny anyone, rather to enable everyone of the time.
How did Luther's translation differ from the Vulgate? IIRC, he even included the Apocrypha with the Old and New Testament in 1534.
Douay Rheims is the accepted English translation. Wycliff wasn’t necessary, nor did he have well over 50 years and numerous scholars working on it.
He, like Luther, were not supervised, and not entitled to write their own versions. This is very consistent with a number of bibles in France, at that time, that were written in “simpler” language, that confused the teachings of the Church.
“as a Catholic I have been interested in what goes on in a protestant service I have been to other Lutheran services same stuff different day “
I suggest you look outside the Luthern church instead of generalizing. I always hear on FR how protestants have “30,000 denominations.” Visiting just one and generalizing is extremely thin gruel to draw your conclusion from. Nor did you ever address the Biblical basis of fellowship.
“so your protestations aside fellowship is for protestants cause they don’t have the real deal - our Catholic Mass.”
1. No protest. Just saying it isn’t my experience in 5 states and another country, in a number of different protestant churches. If you are pleased with generalizing from a sample size of one denomination on a couple visits, OK.
2. Of course, you believe the “Catholic Mass” is the real deal. You are Catholic. Hundreds of millions of Christians read the Scriptures and reach a very different conclusion.
“just doing for 2000 years what He commanded us to do.”
If you are willing to never look under the rug to see what assumptions are swept under there to hide, you could reach that conclusion. I looked. It isn’t persuasive.
I wish you the best.
The voicing of opinions here is not trolling or Machiavellian. Psychopathic? Please.
Sure every poster is sinless and blameless in your alt universe.
Did you read any of the articles on anon posting?
Im sure you believe in the Elf on the Shelf too.
AMDG
Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam
Perhaps you refuse the ancient and unchanging teaching of the Church and the successors of the Apostles to suit yourself.
Their teachings were from the original texts, and those who have followed, built on what was revealed originally.
You actually believe that, huh?
I thought you were going to work?
Of course I do. Care to refute it?
Im on my way...
You work?
Lunch break.
“Im sure you believe in the Elf on the Shelf too.”
I’ve actually seen it in stores.
I also saw the Mensch on a Bench on Shark Tank last night.
These things are real!
Luke 1:28 καὶ εἰσελθὼν πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη,
Luke 1:28 And the messenger having come in unto her, said, 'Hail, favoured with grace, the Lord is with thee;
There is no "full" in there. The Greek word for "full" is plērēs and is used in Acts 6:8
Acts 6:8 Now Stephen, a man full (plērēs) of God's grace and power, performed great wonders and signs among the people.
The Greek word plērēs is NOT used in any reference to Mary nor can it be extrapolated from any word used addressing Mary.
As is easy to do with RC statements on her Eucharist.
Catholics definitely believe that the communion hosts become the Body of Christ - as He Himself said “This is My Body”. They do, however, still maintain the appearance of bread, as does the communion wine maintain its appearance of wine, though it’s been converted into His Blood, as it was at the Last Supper. I thought you were claiming it was actually converted into meat; if that was not your claim, I retract and apologize for my accusation.
It certainly was not my intent to deny that in transubstantiation the "actual flesh" means via supernatural mode. That the substance of the bread and wine is changed during the Eucharistic consecration into the Body and Blood, soul and divinity of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine, while His body in its spatial existence in Heaven remains, with the "accidents" of the bread and wine replacing the accidents of Christ’s body: his tissues, bones, and cells. Thus "While Christ’s body is in heaven according to his natural mode of existence, it can simultaneously be present in the Eucharist according to a supernatural mode of existence." http://www.catholicvirginian.org/archive/2013/2013vol89iss3/pages/article7.html
But as the above explanation states, "So, yes, the Eucharist is the actual Body of Christ." And thus while my statement ca be misinterpreted, as can that Caths believe Mary is the mother of God (inferring ontological procreation of deity), nonetheless it is a valid statement of what Catholics believe. "Under the appearance of bead and wine" could be added.
Of course, this is certainly not what Scripture teaches, as only the figurative view is consistent with the rest of Scripture, interpretive of the gospels, as explained in this post more.
in which men are said to be "bread" for Israel, and literal water is said to be the blood of men," and the word of God is "eaten," and by which man lives," and doing God's will is Christ's "meat," etc. And in which spiritual life is never obtained by physically eating anything, but by believing the word of God, which is how Christ lived by the Father, (Jn.6:57) and which is what nourishes souls. (1Tim. 4:6; Col. 3:16) <
And thus prayer and preaching is the primary function of pastors, (Acts 6:3,4; 1Tim. 4:1,2) versus men distinctively titled "priests" (from “hiereus”) offering the body and blood of Christ as an atonement for sin and given to souls to consume in order to obtain spiritual life.
Not one reference in there about where the apostles taught the assumption of Mary.
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.