Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

self | 12-14-14 | ealgeone

[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.

[Mrs. Don-o]

BTW, “highest honor” -— Calvin’s phrase -— is synonymous with “hyperdulia.”

[CynicalBear]

>>Mary has no role in the ministerial priesthood.<<

Riiiiigggggghhhhhttttt.

>>Calvin is no particular authority, to me, but I quote this by means of illustration:<<

Look up the name Michael Servetus and you may get a sense of what I think of Calvin. If you thought that was going to sway or impress me guess again. Using men like that to establish beliefs on is counterproductive as far as I'm concerned.

[CynicalBear]

>>That’s your opinion. Not dispositive, I think.<<

I don't doubt that you think that. I suppose the Holy Spirit didn't know the difference when He call Stephen and Jesus "full of grace" but didn't use that term for Mary.

[CynicalBear]

>>But Paul said to be faithful to his spoken word, his example, and his letters --- correct?<<

Then produce a source that proves Paul taught the assumption of Mary. And while your at it show a source that proves what the Catholic Church today claims was taught orally by the apostles. I do believe metmom has asked for that proof as well and has never received it.

[Mrs. Don-o]

>Mary has no role in the ministerial priesthood.<
Riiiiigggggghhhhhttttt.

Well, that's a fact!

"...you may get a sense of what I think of Calvin."

Thanks for the heads-up. No Calvin for you!

[Elsie]

which provides continuity with the earliest Christians.

So does breathing.

[Elsie]

You disagree?

Just a simple yes or no...

Is believing that the wafer provided by Rome actually IS the body of Christ NECESSARY for salvation?

[Elsie]

I would never dare --- and the Catholic Church would never dare --- to teach something unambiguously slap-down forbidden by St.Paul.

 

John 6:28-29

Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

---

1 John 3:21-24

Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. The one who keeps God’s commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.

[af_vet_1981]

And just for tracking purposes, here’s the English:

(14) But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; (15) And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

(16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

(17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

We can see from the above passage there’s nothing wrong with Timothy remembering what Paul taught him in person. He was a living apostle, after all, and you don’t see those every day. But there's no hint here that anything Paul taught in person was different from anything he wrote in Scripture, or that the written apostolic record could ever be trumped by claims of newly discovered whispers from the past or oracles of the present.

No, rather we can see from the above passage that Timothy should continue in the things he has learned and been assured of from the Apostle. That is not a nothing wrong with option. That is the first item and is fundamental to the rest of the passage.

Without that, we might have a new sect or faith group called the Timothians. ... Oh wait ... Looks like that name is used. Well, we certainly cannot blame Timothy. He continued in the same holy catholic apostolic church.

The warning by the Apostle Peter does not indicate that what Paul taught in person was different from anything he wrote in Scripture, but rather that it was difficult to understand. Having the Apostle Paul in person to explain not only his teaching but giving commentary on the rest of the scriptures was priceless, and a sure antidote to confusion and error, providing his sons in the faith followed his first fundamental instruction to Timothy. We have some of that in his books. We do not have a complete record of everything he taught and wrote, nor the ability for follow up posts, other than the communion of the saints, which I assume you do not share.

[Elsie]

Calvin-o-saurus is the way MARY ‘facts’ are discerned by the church.

[Mrs. Don-o]

It's quite important to make a distinction about how Jesus Christ is "full of grace" and how, for instance, St. Stephen is "full of grace". They wouldn't be exactly equal, would they? So to look at the Greek could help us avoid the mistake of considering Jesus (God) on the same footing as mere human persons. Agreed?

How can they be distinguished, then?

The Greek grammar shows how.

Kecharitomene is a Greek perfect, passive, participle, which could literally be translated "having been graced," since the root of the word is "charis", which means grace. Ephesians 1:6, which refers to Jesus Christ, uses the aorist, active, indicative echaritosen, meaning "He graced."

Note the difference between Mary, passive voice, "she received grace"; Jesus, active voice, "He graced." This is due to the fact that Jesus is a Divine person; Mary is a human person, a creature, a handmaid.

In Luke 1:28 "Kecharitomene" is nominative or titular, since it follows the greeting "Chaire" ---"Hail [name or title] --- thus the name would normally be capitalized in English translations.

The unique feature of "Kecharitomene" is that it is in the Greek perfect tense, denoting that the state of grace began in past time, by a completed action (hence "fully" accomplished), whose results continue in the present. A more detailed but more suitable translation to denote all these features might be "Fully-Graced One." The Greek passive voice denotes that Mary received the title from an outside source, in this case, ALmighty God.

With me so far?

The New Testament uses the Greek "pleres charitos" ("full of grace") to describe Jesus (John 1:14) and Stephen (Acts 6:8), but these usages are not as specific as to time, agent and continuity as "Kecharitomene".

This is the only place in the Bible --- the only place in all of Greek literature ---where this word is used as a form of address. It's unique. It doesn't make her equal to God (passive voice: it's been done unto her) and not identical to what's said of Stephen, because it's

• past (the state of grace completed in past time),
• perfect (a completed and accomplished action),
• continuing (its results continue into the present),
• nominative (name/ title bestowed by an outside agent, in this case, God.)

This unique neologism Kecharitomene is the best Greek word that could have been invented by Divine inspiration to indicate Mary's sinlessness, her being equipped to play her role as the natural source of Christ's human nature, His flesh: human, yet untainted by sin. No other Greek formulation could have conveyed it all.

Smart Archangel, that Gabriel.

[Springfield Reformer]

Although Calvin is as fallible as anybody, in reading Calvin one can be fairly confident he has not, for the most part, exposed himself to the errors of Rome.  This passage from Calvin, often quoted on RC Apologist web sites, almost never is given in the sort of context that gives the true sense of scale in the several honors bestowed on Mary.  If one were to stop with the phrase "God conferred the highest honor on Mary," one could get a very wrong impression of what he was saying.  To set this right, we must look to Calvin's Harmony of the Gospels, from which this passage comes.  Unfortunately, the original is in Latin, and the Latin I have not yet found on the web.  

However, even without the Latin, we may reverse engineer to discover whether the relative superlative "highest honor" is in fact the same as "hyperdulia."  It is not.  If one wants to say "highest honor" in Latin, the expression is "summum honorem."  This is an important distinction, because dulia is not derived from "honor" but "servitude," as in Greek doulos, slave.  Now no doubt a slave honors their master, and this is how the concept has transferred.  But again, as Calvin is writing this in Latin, and not in favor of Roman error, we cannot suppose he used here the Roman technical expression for veneration of Mary, but rather describes that highest of honors that can be given to any human mother, to carry in her womb Jesus the Savior.

But if we were to stop the analysis there, we would still fall short of understanding Calvin.  To set the table for this, here is the passage he is commenting on:

And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.
(Luke 11:27-28)

And here, as evangelicals have done for centuries, Calvin is going to demonstrate in this passage, not the Roman sense of doulos, servitude to Mary, but Jesus' teaching that a spiritual servitude to the word of God, and a willingness to keep it, is by comparison an even greater blessing than that highest of honors, being Jesus' earthly mother.  With that in mind, note the fuller text:

Luke 11:27. Blessed is the womb. By this eulogium the woman intended to magnify the excellence of Christ; for she had no reference to Mary, 154 whom, perhaps, she had never seen. And yet it tends in a high degree to illustrate the glory of Christ, that she pronounces the womb that bore him to be noble and blessed. Nor was the blessing inappropriate, but in strict accordance with the manner of Scripture; for we know that offspring, and particularly when endued with distinguished virtues, is declared to be a remarkable gift of God, preferable to all others. It cannot even be denied that God conferred the highest honor on Mary, by choosing and appointing her to be the mother of his Son. And yet Christ’s reply is so far from assenting to this female voice, that it contains an indirect reproof.

Nay, rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God. We see that Christ treats almost as a matter of indifference that point on which the woman had set a high value. And undoubtedly what she supposed to be Mary’s highest honor was far inferior to the other favors which she had received; for it was of vastly greater importance to be regenerated by the Spirit of God than to conceive Christ, according to the flesh, in her womb; to have Christ living spiritually within her than to suckle him with her breasts. In a word, the highest happiness and glory of the holy Virgin consisted in her being a member of his Son, so that the heavenly Father reckoned her in the number of new creatures.

Calvin's Harmony of the Gospels, Volume 2

So we see Calvin speaking of that "highest honor" of giving birth to Jesus being inferior to those other, greater favors which she had received, namely, to be counted among those regenerated by God's Spirit, to have Christ living spiritually within her, in being a fellow member of the body of Christ, and therefore among God's new creations, as can be said of all who have come to true faith in Christ.  So then any simple sinner who has come to Christ in faith and repented of their sin and honors the word of God in word and deed is holding a greater treasure in their hand than the "highest honor" ever bestowed on Mary for giving birth to Jesus.

In sum, trying to take that one expression and turn it into Calvin supporting Rome's false view of Mary is to put words in Calvin's mouth he would never say, in Latin or any other language, and certainly did not say here..

Peace,

SR

[BlueDragon]

The Protestant tradition does not claim this continuity because it can't. Sorry.

Cannot claim continuity you say?

Sure they can -- and rightfully enough do, whenever that which was not in actuality Apostolic continuity is set aside.

Ecclesiastes 7:29

Truly, this only I have found:
That God made man upright,
But they have sought out many schemes.”

[Mrs. Don-o]

Paul didn't teach the Assumption of Mary, that I know of. It was more John, I should think. (Revelation 12.)

This is wonderfully foreshadowed by the OT Messianic types and prophecies. Check out Psalm 45. Understanding that this is a Messianic psalm --- we read the OT Christologically --- here's a royal lady associated with the King:

Kings’ daughters
were among thy honourable women:
upon thy right hand
did stand the queen in gold of Ophir.
Hearken, O daughter, and consider,
and incline thine ear;
forget also thine own people,
and thy father’s house;
so shall the king
greatly desire thy beauty:
for he is thy Lord;
and worship thou him.
And the daughter of Tyre
shall be there with a gift;
even the rich among the people
shall entreat thy favour.
The king’s daughter is all glorious within:
her clothing is of wrought gold.
She shall be brought unto the king
in raiment of needlework:
the virgins her companions that follow her
shall be brought unto thee.
With gladness and rejoicing shall they be brought:
they shall enter into the king’s palace.
Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children,
whom thou mayest make princes in all the earth.
I will make thy name to be remembered
in all generations:
therefore shall the people praise thee
for ever and ever.

Gorgeous. Wonderful. Here's a good picture:

You don't think it's Mary? Well, who else? what else can you do with all those foretellings of Queenship in the OT? Mary was the lowliest. That's why God delights in lifting her. What a wonderful, splendid Scriptural theme:

Job 5:11
The lowly he sets on high, and those who mourn are lifted to safety.

Luke 14:11
For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted."

James 4:10
Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up.

Luke 1:51-52
He has done mighty deeds with His arm;
He has scattered those who were proud in the thoughts of their heart.
He has brought down rulers from their thrones,
And has exalted those who were humble.

Don't be surprised to see this lady clothed with the sun, standing on the moon and wearing a crown of twelve stars. Not because she is a 'goddess,' no, no, no, no, no! Because she is His lowly handmaid.

I celebrate this queenship of the lowly. I love it. I thank God for it! I am sorry for those intent on explaining it away, minimizing it, while she magnifies the Lord.

[CynicalBear]

My dear Mrs. Don-o, The same word used in Luke 1.28 is used in Ephesians 1:6 without the attached "you".

Ephesians 1:6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.

I understand your intense desire that Luke 1:28 include some illusion to "full of grace" but it does not.

>>by a completed action (hence "fully" accomplished),<<

Fully accomplished does NOT mean "full of". I have explained that to you in the past. If I finish putting a 100 bushel wagon load of grain into a 1000 bushel bin I have fully accomplished unloading that wagon. It also means it's been done in the past. It does NOT mean the bin is full.

Mary receiving grace which was naturally in the past since the angel was already there telling her she had received grace in no way indicates she was "full of grace" once again. The term "full of grace" is once again a twisting of words by the Catholic Church to insert justification for their belief.

If the Holy Spirit had intended to indicate that Mary was "full of grace" as He clearly did for Stephen, He would have included the word pleres as He did for Stephen.

Finally, the greeting Chaire is a a primary verb; to be "cheer"ful, i.e. Calmly happy or well-off; impersonally, especially as salutation (on meeting or parting), be well -- farewell, be glad, God speed, greeting, hall, joy(- fully), rejoice. [http://biblehub.com/strongs/greek/5463.htm].

past (the state of grace completed in past time), I already unloaded the corn.
perfect (a completed and accomplished action), I completely unloaded that 100 bushel load of corn.
continuing (its results continue into the present), The load continues to be unloaded. I do not have to do it again.
nominative (name/ title bestowed by an outside agent, in this case, God.) I was the one who unloaded the corn, it did not unload itself.

Now, you didn't attribute the source of your post so I would guess it's from the Catholic Church itself rather than an impartial source. In that can I assume you care not about impartial sources for fear of finding truth?

[CynicalBear]

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Israel is the wife of the Father and the ekklesia is the bride of Christ. I doubt very much that you would be willing to study the fact that the Father will take Israel back as His wife.

[daniel1212]

Did you cry? Be honest!

[Springfield Reformer]

Dittos on the misuse of the perfect tense.  Folks need to be careful when referencing Greek language resources.  After spending some serious time doing translation of the Greek, even at the introductory level, you start to realize that these grammatical categories are necessary to figure out the semantic meaning, but they don't give you "magic bullet" neologisms that you can fill with whatever meaning you like, least of all meanings based on a radical misconception of the "perfect" tense.  

For example, the tenses in Greek are primarily to help you locate an event in time or logical sequence. They do NOT tell you anything about the quantities involved internally to the event. For example, the aorist is punctilliar.  It sets down an event at a specific point, and that's it.  The "perfect" tense goes a little beyond that, because it not only sets out the event as having happened, but it indicates a continued effect into the present.  

This works out in Luke 1:28 very straightforwardly. Mary received a great kindness from God.  She received it at some point in the past, and she is still benefiting from it in the present.  Done.  Then we learn what that great kindness was, that she should be chosen to give birth to the Messiah.  That's the grace/kindness/favor she received, and she received it gladly.

Mrs D, really, one of the reasons it would be good for you to source that whole misconstruction of the Greek you cited is to evaluate the source, and perhaps see if a response has been posted to refute it.  I tried going back and finding it, but couldn't find the original citation.  I'm thinking whoever posted it probably removed it because it is so utterly indefensible.  That's not your fault.  But it's kind of a peer review thing.  

BTW, there is a simple, grammatical reason for the passive being used in Luke 1:28 and the active in Ephesians 1:6.  In Luke 1:28, God is presumed to be the giver of the kindness to Mary, but in Ephesians 1:6, God is explicitly set out as giver of this grace/favor/kindness to us.  So in Luke 1:28, the subject being unnamed (God) transfers the focus of the verb to the object (Mary) the passive recipient, but in Eph. 1:6, the subject has been named (verse 1, God), so the verb takes on the active voice, even though the object ("us") is just as much a passive recipient of the grace/favor/kindness as Mary.

Bottom line, no creditable Greek scholar would find any real difference between Ephesians 1:6 and Luke 1:28, based simply on person, number, or voice.  Those are structural requirements for each context, but they don't change the meaning at all.  They are both based on charitoo, both in the perfect tense, both describe recipients of an action, that action is done, but has ongoing consequences.  Therefore, if you make a special pleading for Luke 1:28, it necessarily applies equally to Ephesians 1:6.  If you can stretch the "perfect" to give Mary "full grace,"  then every Ephesians 1:6 believer necessarily has the same thing. Same subject, same verb, same tense, same effect.  Much better to just let the text inform us that both we and Mary have been shown great and undeserved kindness by our God, and that the blessings from that favor just keep on coming.

Peace,

SR

[CynicalBear]

Thank you for taking the time to do that. You have eloquently refined my crude efforts and I appreciate it.

I know that Mrs. D is truly sincere but has been misled and really needs to do some independent study.

[CynicalBear]

>>Calvin-o-saurus is the way MARY ‘facts’ are discerned by the church.<<

Dinosaurs always fascinated me.