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.

[xzins]

There is no claim by the Catholics that the Pope is God or Messiah.

[GBA]

I watch Dr. Charles Stanley sometimes. He's one of the better TV ministers and is a good teacher, but he can put me to sleep if I'm not super interested in his sermon topic.

David Jeremiah is another one I'll watch sometimes.

I used to avoid them all with a white hot passion, but now I can see that more than a few of the current TV preachers have at least something to offer, some more than others. To each, their own, I guess.

I figure that anyone or anything that puts a few cracks in the walls we build around our hearts is of value.

[xzins]

Are those people dying for Christ Christians?

[xzins]

I have no idea why that passage is so poorly translated.

[xzins]

It sounds like they had a active mother/son relationship. It’s silly to think they were disconnected.

[Resettozero]

I watch Dr. Charles Stanley sometimes. He's one of the better TV ministers and is a good teacher, but he can put me to sleep if I'm not super interested in his sermon topic.

Paul had the same effect on a young man sitting in the rafters who dozed off.

[xzins]

You KNOW that Jesus has to be told what to do by His MOTHER! Rome has taught that for CENTURIES!

It's the protestant freepers who are saying His mother was pushing Him around. They have Jesus whining, "But, Mom, I'm not reaaaadddddyyyy." So Mary says to Him, "Do it, Buster, or I'll......"

In the scripture version, the wine's gone, and Mom tells Him that fact. He jokes at her, "That's nuthin' to the 2 of us, Woman. The passion days aren't here yet." She responds to the servants, "Whatever He says...DO IT!"

Sounds like a fun mother/son relationship to me.

[xzins]

We’re discussing “my hour has not yet come.”

[xzins]

Of course His miracles were planned, since they were prophesied.

Luke 7: 20 When the men came to Jesus, they said, "John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, 'Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?' " 21 At that very time Jesus cured many who had diseases, sicknesses and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind. 22 So he replied to the messengers, "Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. 23 Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me."

From Isaiah:

Is 35: 3 Strengthen the feeble hands, steady the knees that give way; 4 say to those with fearful hearts, "Be strong, do not fear; your God will come, he will come with vengeance; with divine retribution he will come to save you." 5 Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped. 6 Then will the lame leap like a deer, and the mute tongue shout for joy. Water will gush forth in the wilderness and streams in the desert. 7 The burning sand will become a pool, the thirsty ground bubbling springs. In the haunts where jackals once lay, grass and reeds and papyrus will grow. 8 And a highway will be there; it will be called the Way of Holiness. The unclean will not journey on it; it will be for those who walk in that Way; wicked fools will not go about on it. 9 No lion will be there, nor will any ferocious beast get up on it; they will not be found there. But only the redeemed will walk there,

Water to Wine was one of the 'sign' miracles designed to lead to faith. "John 20: 30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. "

John 4: 54 This was the second miraculous sign that Jesus performed, having come from Judea to Galilee.

John 6:14 After the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus did, they began to say, "Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world."

John 12: 17 Now the crowd that was with him when he called Lazarus from the tomb and raised him from the dead continued to spread the word. 18 Many people, because they had heard that he had given this miraculous sign, went out to meet him. 19 So the Pharisees said to one another, "See, this is getting us nowhere. Look how the whole world has gone after him!"

[Springfield Reformer]

While it is interesting you make reference to the sacrament of reconciliation, after a manner, but this was no reconciliation between the LORD and Peter, it was a confirmation of Peter's leadership. Messiah had already appeared to Peter twice and breathed the Holy Spirit on him. Messiah confirmed the apostolic mandate to forgive sins as His representatives. I read the scriptures and find this was the third time the risen Messiah appeared to the Apostles. I note the first recorded time was to Mary Magdelene who went straight to Peter first. I note Peter was the only one of the Twelve, that when he heard the LORD, cast himself into the sea so as to reach him straight way while the others took a boat in. Wherefore my sentence is that the LORD Jesus Christ publicly asked him in front of the others and when Peter affirmed he loved Him and He knew that, the LORD confirmed his leadership among the Apostles with a commission to feed His sheep and submit to martyrdom by crucifixion. The apostle to the Gentiles called Peter, and no other Apostle, the Apostle to the Circumcision. Both had a special servant leader role given to them by the LORD Jesus Christ. Both died as martyrs in Rome and their bodies are buried there to this day.

While I appreciate the sincerity of your position, there is much more of speculation than fact in what you have said here. (Also please note I have removed the copy-paste error where you duplicated my text in the body of your own text).  


1) First, let's review your assertions about an alleged post-resurrection preference for Peter:

The relevant passages are these:
(BTW, technical note, to avoid any unnecessary discomfort on your part, I have modified my e-Sword automatic quoting style to eliminate versification and just use a passage reference at the end)

And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you. And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word. And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
(Matthew 28:5-9)

And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid. Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.
(Mark 16:6-11)

And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. And they remembered his words, And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest. 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. And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not. Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.
(Luke 24:5-12)

The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed. For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.
(John 20:1-10)

Observe that in the three synoptic accounts, no distinction is made on who Mary first reports to concerning the resurrection proper. It's just "the disciples." But in John we have two reporting events.  At first the women discover the body is missing, and they report this to TWO disciples, Peter being one, and the other being John, often identified indirectly as the "other disciple" or "the disciple whom Jesus loved" in his own book.  Peter was a man of action, and did have a leadership role among the disciples, so it is not surprising he should be consulted over the mystery of the missing body.  But John was in on that as well.  

As for the actual appearance of Christ to Mary Magdalene, once she sees Him, she obeys His direction and reports this appearance to all the disciples.  None is given preference over the others.  Also notice that in the Lukan passage, Peter comes from the empty tomb scratching his head, wondering about what happened.  But John, in the passage from John, is the one who believes.  But here perhaps he only means to say that he believed the body was missing, which, if you think about it, did require a major adjustment in thinking.  But that Jesus had risen was still being greeted with skepticism by the disciples as a group, as the synoptic passages all show.  So Peter, and John, even after seeing the empty tomb, were among those unwilling to take Mary's eye witness account at face value.

2) Jesus walking on the water:

The relevant passage:

And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea. And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear. But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid. And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water. And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus. But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me. And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?
(Matthew 14:25-31)

Here we can note a few things.  This passage would not be relevant to Peter's later failure, as it happened while Peter was still self-deceived that he would be true to Jesus under all conditions, before his faith had been tested to the limit.  In fact, this over-the-top self-confidence is one of those things that in Peter seems to be a strength and a weakness all at once.  He has the courage and the God-given insight to affirm in words that Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah. But in another place Peter affirms he will never desert Jesus, yet he does. On the night of Jesus' betrayal, he chops off someone's ear, perhaps thinking they could fight their way out of this.  In another place he has the hubris to tell Jesus to avoid the confrontation in Jerusalem and thus survive. We all know what Jesus thought of that.

Here, he asks the one walking on the water, whom moments ago he was convinced was a ghost, to confirm his identity as Christ by having Peter come to him on the water.  Surely only Jesus could do that.  It was sound reasoning, and full of faith.  Yet when Jesus grants this petition, and grants Peter the proof he desires, what does Peter do next? Can I say he gets cold feet? Cold, wet feet. He doubts his own test. Jesus gave him what he asked for, but it wasn't enough for Peter.  He doubted, and began to sink.  As if to make sure the lesson is not lost, after Jesus pulls him up from the water, he rebukes Peter for his lack of faith.

There are some very interesting lessons in this passage.  One can be in the very presence of Jesus and still have wrong ideas about oneself. Jesus is giving him a preview of his later failure.  It is the same pattern.  Peter stakes out a bold claim to faith, puts it to the test, and comes up short.  Jesus knows reality can be a much harder place to remain faithful than just thinking ourselves to be faithful.  This pulls me back to that famous Johnathan Edwards sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." Edwards makes it plain. We all have thoughts about ourselves, what we will do when confronted with eternity, how well prepared we are for it.  We all have "a plan." But our plan will come up short on that day when we are tested, except that by God's grace we are under God's plan.  None of our plans will save a one of us from falling through the surface and sinking into eternal damnation. Cheery sermon, I know.  But so true.  Peter doubted. Why? In that moment of test he failed. Can it be he was at some deeper level looking to his own strength to save him, and not to Christ after all? And if so for Peter, who else among us can afford such a costly overconfidence? Peter, who lived with Jesus in person for three years.  

So no, I do not think this makes out a case for the spiritual superiority of Peter.  Such an analysis runs counter to everything we know about how the grace of God works, and it is not supported by the fully unpacked description of Peter either.

3)  On feeding the sheep

Again, given that Peter did rejoice with the other apostles when Jesus appeared to them as a group, one can speculate that he experienced a renewed sense of fellowship with Him.  But the text is not specific about that.  We don't know how Peter may have yet been hurting deeply that he betrayed his own brash commitment of loyalty to Jesus.  More likely he felt a cascade of conflicting emotions.  Yes, I'm speculating.  But this is just acknowledging the reality of how people work, and if you've dealt with people long enough, you know these major breaches of trust are never over right away.  Peter did love Jesus, deeply.  But the last time it was tested, he loved his own skin more.  That's a terrible burden, and a true encumbrance on the ministry God had in store for Peter.  It's hard to minister to others when you are full of doubt and sorrow of heart over regrets of the past. Peter needed a restoration.

Furthermore, it would trivialize the gravity of what Peter did to just whitewash it by saying, yes, he was happy to see Jesus alive again.  It was necessary for the other disciples, and for us by extension, to see how Jesus was so gentle toward Peter even after his catastrophic failure. It gives all of us hope. Every person called of God to minister the word of God to the flock of God is a feeder of Jesus' sheep.  Peter was too.  But not to the exclusion of any other servant of God called to that ministry.  When Jesus tells Peter to feed His sheep, He is restoring Peter to his principle duty as an apostle.  In no way does such a beneficent act serve to exclude others called of God for that same work, or to set Peter above the others.  That simply isn't in the text.  This is Jesus to Peter, mano a mano, telling him to get back to work. He knows Peter loves Him, and He wants Peter to follow up by feeding Jesus' sheep.  

And perhaps most important, He assures Peter he will have another chance to surrender his life on behalf of Jesus.  It's hard to think of getting a "second chance" at dying for Christ, but for Peter this was doubtless the best news he could have heard.  Not that Peter wanted to die for it's own sake.  But that he wanted to pass that ultimate test of love:

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
(John 15:13)

To retrofit such a passage, a real and tender portrait of Christ healing Peter's heart and restoring his ministry, with the episcopal hubris of 3rd Century Rome, is a fallacy of anachronism, and a great loss to those who would come to the fountain of Scripture to wash their own wounds.  There is great spiritual beauty and human reality here.  A pity to have it tangled up in pseudo-proofs of denominational superiority.

Peace,

SR

[Springfield Reformer]

We walk by faith, not by sight.

Faith in God, not man. If some man comes to me and says, Christ is here, or there, or in some secret chamber (a monstrance perhaps), does Christ allow me to believe them?  Doesn't John say test the spirits?  Doesn't Paul commend the Bereans for fact-checking ... Paul? Fact check an Apostle?? Yes!!  

This is the epistemological divide that separates human religion from divine.  If we believe in God, we will fact-check men.  If we believe in men, we will fact-check God. I fact-check men.  If a person wants to believe the moon is made of green cheese, it's a (sort-of) free country, so they can do that if it makes them happy. Or they can claim a spaceship will come and rescue this or that group from earth, and I'd better follow them or else.  Sorry, but how do I fact check men by starting with men?  I have to start with God.  I have no choice.  And what has God given us? His word.  That's where the fact-checking must find it's firm basis.  Everything else is quicksand.  

And that means I have a duty as a person of faith in God to doubt men who cannot back up their historical claims. I cannot base my faith on uninspired lists of imaginary popes. Those who worship God must do so in Spirit and in truth.  You cannot be a worshiper of God independent of truth.  And if the truth of the raw data from the first two centuries is that there was no Petrine office in Rome, no universal bishop, no pontifex maximus, then that's what I have an obligation to believe. I cannot lie to myself and expect to know truth. I cannot rationally put my faith in some third party that contradicts both history and Scripture.  We walk by faith and not by sight, but we do not walk by wild irrationality.  Faith is reasonable.  Your own best doctors say so.  

A matter is confirmed by two or three witnesses, no?  If Rome says, yes, but history and Scripture say no, what sentence must I pronounce?

There is only one Klal Yisroel.

Absolutely true. And if you look for the Ecclesia anywhere but in the heart of true faith, created by God Himself in all the elect, you will miss it. Not in temples made with hands. Not man looking on the outward appearance.  But God looking on the heart. A circumcision not made with hands, but by the cleansing from sin through faith in the Son of God.

Peace,

SR

[Dutchboy88]

"Yes, Catholics agree with Protestants on this much, hence the Catechism :"

Faith in Jesus Christ? Are you certain this is all your organization demands? Then, which of these are not in accord with the Romanist view?

Bernadine: …all gifts, all virtues, and all graces are dispensed by the hands of Mary to whomsoever, when, and as she pleases. O Lady, since thou art the dispenser of all graces, and since the grace of salvation can ONLY come through thy hands, OUR SALVATION DEPENDS ON THEE.

Bonaventure: …the gates of heaven will open to all who confide in the protection of Mary. Blessed are they who know thee, O Mother of God, for the knowledge of THEE is the high road to everlasting life, and the publication of thy virtues is the way of ETERNAL SALVATION. Give ear, O ye nations; and all you who desire heaven , serve, honor Mary, and certainly you will find ETERNAL LIFE.

Ephem: …devotion to the divine Mother…is the unlocking of the heavenly Jerusalem.

Blosius: To the, O Lady, are committed the KEYS and the treasures of the kingdom of Heaven.

Ambrose: …constantly pray ‘Open to us, O Mary, the gates of paradise, since thou hast its KEYS.

Fulgetius: …by Mary God descended from Heaven into the world, that by HER man might ascend from earth to Heaven.

Athanasius: …And, thou, O Lady, wast filled with grace, that thou mightiest be the way of our SALVATION and the means of ascent to the heavenly Kingdom.

Richard of Laurence: Mary, in fine, is the mistress of heaven; for there she commands as she wills, and ADMITS whom she wills.

Guerric: …he who serves Mary and for whom she intercedes, is as CERTAIN of heaven as if he were already there…and those who DO NOT serve Mary will NOT BE SAVED.

Anselm: It suffices, O Lady, that thou willest it, and our SALVATION is certain.

Antoninus: …souls protected by Mary, and on which she casts her eyes, are NECESSARILY JUSTIFIED AND SAVED.

I could go on, but my fingers are tired...

[aMorePerfectUnion]

False worship & idolatry placemarker

[CynicalBear]

>>There is no claim by the Catholics that the Pope is God or Messiah.<<

Oh really?

The Gloss of Extravagantes of Pope John XXII says this: But to believe that our Lord God the Pope the establisher of said decretal, and of this, could not decree, as he did decree, should be accounted heretical. [The Gloss of Extravagantes of Pope John XXII, Cum. Inter, title 14, chapter 4, "Ad Callem Sexti Decretalium", Column 140 (Paris, 1685). In an Antwerp edition of the Extravagantes, the words, Dominum Deum Nostrum Papam ("Our Lord God the Pope") can be found in column 153[

Just recently, in 2004, Bishop Patrick Dunn of Auckland said this: "It seems that Pope John Paul II now presides over the universal Church from his place upon Christ's cross. [http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/auckland-bishop-says-pope-presides-from-the-cross]

we readily understand the devotion of Saint Francis of Assisi for "the Lord Pope",the daughterly outspokenness of Saint Catherine of Siena towards the one whom she called "sweet Christ on earth", the apostolic obedience and the sentire cum Ecclesia of Saint Ignatius Loyola,and the joyful profession of faith made by Saint Teresa of Avila: "I am a daughter of the Church" [Pope John Paul II, Vita Consecrata (March 25, 1996): vatican.va.]

[xzins]

I can't speak to the others yet, but I did find this about the first one:

[The Gloss of Extravagantes of Pope John XXII, Cum. Inter, title 14, chapter 4, "Ad Callem Sexti Decretalium", Column 140 (Paris, 1685). In an Antwerp edition of the Extravagantes, the words, Dominum Deum Nostrum Papam ("Our Lord God the Pope") can be found in column 153[

Apparently, it is a copy of a copy of a copy, etc. The original was actually dated in the 1300's, so this copy is 300 years later.

They have found the original from the 1300's in the Vatican Library, and it says "Dominum Nostrum Papam". The word for God, Deum, is not used.

Additionally, the fact that they're arguing against a claim that they believe the Pope is God says they don't believe such a thing.

I've not been able to look at the others yet, but at first glance I'd say it has to do with their statement that the Pope is Christ's Vicar on Earth..

[xzins]

If accurate, those are troublesome comments from some ancient people.

[CynicalBear]

So it’s “simply” or “Lord the Pope” ey?

[CynicalBear]

I should add. I wonder how that fits with the Catholics proclaiming Mary the “mother of God” from Elizibeth’s comment using “Lord”?

[xzins]

Yes. It’s the 1300, CB. Everybody was Lord This or Lord That, if you recall.

[xzins]

Mary is mother of the incarnate, 2d Person of the Trinity. He was rightfully called, “Lord”.

Do you think Jesus was God while He walked the earth or do you think He was not?