Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

self | 12-14-14 | ealgeone

[Elsie]

I ember poorly...

Lex: Can I touch it?
Dr. Alan Grant: Sure. Just think of it as... kind of a big cow.

[Elsie]

... when a person realizes, in their heart, and is shown over and over, that a decision that they made was probably not a good one, they will go to great extremes to justify that decision ...

At least you recognize the problem; just don't think it applies to you.

[metmom]

To blindly neglect their own well being and expect an army of Angels to descend to defend them would be a little over the top.

The Six Day War.....

It'll never happen if you don't trust God for it.

[terycarl]

at least they have you duped into believing it. Jesus eating His own flesh and drinking His own blood!!! And that all living under the law of not eating blood. That's a sinful Jesus you guys have.

[annalex]

The significance of the perfect tense means an action was completed in the past but with results existing in the present time(in relation to the speaker/writer).

The suffix -μενος, -μενη, -μενο (here in plural, -μενα) simply means it the action of the preceding verb is completed. When it is completed is controlled by the verb εἰμί. In this case we have εσται, future tense, "will-be" (I insert a hyphen because in Greek that's one word). So "εσται δεδεμένα" means "will-be bound", etc.

You can translate "shall have been bound" if you want to overcomplicate the text. Most readers of English understand that "shall be bound" does not mean "shall be being bound again and again", -- the action of binding will be complete. Young's literal has it even "shall be having been bound", which is simply incorrect English grammar.

So on that part you are correct: the heavenly binding and loosing is complete, finished binding and loosing, not continuous one (which in Greek would use the suffix -ομαι, -εται).

You are wrong about "results existing in the present time". The future tense of εσται indicates that the result will be complete in the future. This is also consistent with the conditional εαν. All the translations agree on that part

Matthew
	Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text (2000)	English: Douay-Rheims	English: King James Version	English: Young's Literal Translation
	Matthew 16
19.	και δωσω σοι τας κλεις της βασιλειας των ουρανων και ο εαν δησης επι της γης εσται δεδεμενον εν τοις ουρανοις και ο εαν λυσης επι της γης εσται λελυμενον εν τοις ουρανοις	And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.	And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.	and I will give to thee the keys of the reign of the heavens, and whatever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever thou mayest loose upon the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens.'

We see similar construct in at least two more contexts: "ιερουσαλημ εσται πατουμενη" ("Jerusalem shall be trodden down", Luke 21:24) and "εσται η προς ολιγον φαινομενη επειτα δε και αφανιζομενη" ("appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away", James 4:14). In both cases it is clear that Jerusalem will be trodden down in the future but is not so now; and the "life" that appears and vanishes does so many times now and in the future. While down-trodding, appearing and vanishing are complete actions each time they occur, they are not fixed at the time of the speech.

I understand that when we talk about heaven time considerations are somewhat blurred, -- there is no time for God, -- but the meaning here is clear: the Church (or, at least, the disciples present) may bind and loose in the future, and whatever decision they make on earth will be in heaven. There is nothing mysterious about the grammar here to indicate that the disciples will first consult heaven and then pretend to decide on earth while in fact they simply look it up somehow. They will truly be deciding. And decide they did: for example, when they abolished the dietetic and ceremonial laws of Moses, they did the exact opposite of what you suggesting: they knew what the scripture said and they decided different and -- surprise -- it is now bound in heaven that we may eat lobster and pork.

[annalex]

Irenaeus and many other post apostolic theologians upheld Holy Scriptures as the means to test what they said.

It's getting repetitive. Yes we can test what the Church teaches by the Holy Scripture when the scripture exists on the subject. If the scripture is silent on the subject, of course we cannot test the decisions of the Holy Church with the scripture directly, and the decision stands simply because the Church in her wisdom took it.

[metmom]

when a person realizes, in their heart, and is shown over and over, that a decision that they made was probably not a good one, they will go to great extremes to justify that decision

You just described Catholicism in a nutshell.

No amount of Scripture showing the error of Catholicism has the least effect on a Catholic who is so sold out to Roman Catholicism.

Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery.

[annalex]

I didn't say the Holy Spirit was restricted to only speaking through Scripture.

Good.

He might have been talking about their role in writing the Scriptures

Of course, but He also said that the Paraclete will abide with the apostles forever (John 14:16), so the operation of the Holy Ghost, while includes His role in dictating the scripture is not limited just to the creation of the scripture.

[metmom]

If the scripture is silent on the subject, of course we cannot test the decisions of the Holy Church with the scripture directly, and the decision stands simply because the Church in her wisdom took it.

Self-declared authority is meaningless.

[terycarl]

LOL, ok, whatever you say. You don't know what they said, so how do you know they were lying

ANYTHING THAT THEY SAID that caused you to leave the true church that Jesus Christ founded was a lie...pretty simple!!

[annalex]

I should have been clearer. Man cannot produce grace: he cannot cooperate with God sending grace down. That is what I should have said in application to semi-Pelagianism.

The Catechism says that man must cooperate with grace in the realm of his own works; for example, once in a state of grace a Catholic man can undertake the good work of explaining the scripture to non-Catholics. That is of course true: this is why Sola Fide is a false doctrine.

These were two meanings of “cooperate” that I had to better distinguish between.

[terycarl]

(A) Jesus was speaking literally, the bread became His body, and part of His body (and His blood) did not go to the cross and was not crucified

Do you really think that the miracle of transubstantiation was too much for Christ to handle????????

[annalex]

Yes, I believe that the Holy Spirit draws us as He drew the saints that went before us and that we must study the lives of saints and venerate them in order to go farther toward Christ with the help of the Holy Spirit. For example, if someone is not interested in holiness, does not take example of the saints in similar to his walk of life, then the Holy Spirit is not going to drag him against his will. His Protestant doctrine will deaden his soul and he will not be saved, despite some elements of faith in him.

[terycarl]

pithy

I certainly hope that you don't have a lisp

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“ANYTHING THAT THEY SAID that caused you to leave the true church that Jesus Christ founded was a lie...pretty simple!! “

Deal us some actual facts to support your assertions... Or they remain just your personal beliefs...

[annalex]

I know where the word is. Did you say that the conventional translations are somehow in error? What is the error? How is the “error” connected to the Greek verb for “to be”?

[Elsie]

non-Catholics are those who haven't been validly Baptized.

Acts 8:34-39

 

³⁴ And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?”

 

³⁵ Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus.

 

³⁶ And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?”*

 

³⁸ And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.

 

³⁹ And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing.

---

 

 

*Some manuscripts add all or most of verse 37: And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

[annalex]

I don’t think it is a small-minded comment to point out that the Reformation was indeed a tragic dispute between believers, about which there are clear instructions in the Holy Scripture regarding the Church authority.

You violated the Holy Scripture on that one. Big time. Own it.

[Elsie]

 ...but the meaning here is clear: the Church (or, at least, the disciples present) may bind and loose in the future,

 

 

oh?

 

 

CLEAR??

[terycarl]

You now a JW?

am I now a JW.?????...I'm not the one who might not accept a blood transfusion, it is you that is hung up on putting blood in your body