The Worship of Mary? (An Observation)

[Mad Dawg]

Perhaps there's an example you can point to, of a Catholic "shucking and jiving" anywhere on this thread?

They just say stuff like that because of the goal of some of them to be irritating. I think we can agree that if someone enters a discussion of differing religious points of view with the intention to "drive them nuts" there is little likelihood that Truth or the Gospel has anything to do with their intentions.

These are important matters. But there is rarely a calm dispassionate examination of an argument. There are derision, repetition, comments like "shuck and jive", things of that kind. And when one asks for an explanation of things like "shuck and jive" one gets either no response or more derision and, well, "shucking and jiving"!

It's as useless and as doomed to failure as trying to do brain surgery with a 4 lb hammer. And on either side it's a damnable substitute for witness to Christ.

And when we get to the part where arguments are met with laughter and derision and mocking terms, and the response to that abuse is met with astonished proclamations of innocence, we have entered the realm of the pathological: I am mocking you and what you say in love and peace, Your proportionate response to my loving gestures of mockery, contempt, and evasion of he issues is cruel.

Truth be told there's too much of that on either side. But evidently we MAY be mocking and contemptuous and so we MUST be mocking and contemptuous. God's law takes second place to the rules of FR.

Around here we have bears. If you don't want them too close "around here" it's good not to feed them.

[Mad Dawg]

You have “offerings”? Isn’t Christ’s offering of Himself enough for you?

[Wonder Warthog]

"But you should not take a narrative and use it to assert new physical realities, simply because some parts of the narrative are similar to real-world events."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! ROFLMAO!!! [Wipes tears of mirth from eyes]. A "Protestant" actually has the unmitigated GALL to make the above statemnt?? When the above is pretty much what all Protestant arguments boil down to?? Don't you know that the Earth is only 10,000 years old, and Creation took place over seven 24-hour days?? (y'see, Catholics "can" make ridiculous arguments about Protestants, as is done with drumbeat regularity in the reverse direction).

"The original poster suggested that because the woman was Mary, she must be a Queen because she was wearing a crown."

I'm sure the "other poster" was aware of ALL the aruguments (and biblical at that), which prove that Mary is indeed "a queen"--not just the argument from Revelation.

"BTW, Herod was not waiting for Jesus at the moment of birth either. Which is why he killed all children under the age of 2."

Herod was Satan's tool. Mary's very obscurity was one of the primary tools that God used to PREVENT Jesus's killing at birth. The Revelation narrataive is pretty much a point-for-point match for Jesus's birth, flight to Egypt, and return. God works in a "least effort" manner. For the most part, he uses "small miracles" to get things done, though He gets showy on occasion.

[mgist]

You Roman Catholics should concede the point: No where in the bible are there examples of persons on earth praying to persons in Heaven. And prayer is ALWAYS a form of worship. This is why prayers to idols were seen as so wrong, as PRAYER IS WORSHIP, not merely respect and veneration.

For us the angels and saints in heaven are not dead. Jesus said, "Have you not read 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?" He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living. Matt 22:31-32. Those who die in Christ are now alive in Christ in Heaven. All of our prayers are in "The Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"

Don't Protty's believe in a Guardian Angel? Did you ever request an angel asistence in childhood? It's the same thing.

[NYer]

You will love this.

You're right! What a great pastor and wonderful parish! I particularly like the idea of having the children wear their first communion clothes over the span of 3 weeks.

Instead of all the kids sitting together to receive first communion as is customarily done ( I have never seen it otherwise ) the children sat with thier families, and the families all received as a family.

Yes this is how it is done in our parish. We have children in Catholic schools whose parents think the children must participate in the school's First Communion group. Father has explained that "this" is their parish and "this" is where they make their First Communion. It is done as a family with encouragement to invite their relatives. The woman's society gives each First Communicant, a silver box with the child's name engraved + the date of their First Communion. Inside is a rosary, already blessed by the pastor. We also have a sheet cake with the names of the children, so the entire parish can share in the joy of this beautiful event.

All the boys, now that they have received first communion are required to be altar servers. No girls ever.

Ditto except we don't have enough boys so Father must rely upon some girls to assist. We have several Pre-K and K boys whome we are 'priming' for eventual altar service. FWIW, one of the older servers is 16. He is often paired with the new ones to train them. He received the Sacrament of Confirmation this year and takes his faith very seriously. We plan to have him teach one of the rel ed classes. Faith in action!

When attendance at rel. ed. classes began dropping off this spring, he let the congregation know of his disapproval. He knows how to get to the parents through the kids.

Yes!!! As my pastor often says - the children bring the parents. On the first Sunday of each month, we have what he calls the Children's Mass. Essentially, the children serve at the altar, do the readings and petitions, are peace bearers, and carry up the gifts. This introduces them to the different parish ministries and requires that the parents attend. At the end of the school year, Father invites the children and rel ed teachers to dinner. It might be a local pizzeria or pool party at one of the parent's homes, but it once again shows the children appreciation for their hard work and service.

I'm already gearing up for the Fall. This year, with Father's approval, I am asking the parents to introduce their children to the lives of the saints, have them pick one they like and make a costume to wear on All Saints Day. We will then have each child tell the parishioners about "their" saint. So far, the parent response has been very positive!

Thank you for sharing the experiences from your parish. God bless you, and your whole family. May your children grow strong in their faith.

[Manfred the Wonder Dawg]

I personally know of no protestant church that reads the Bible in a year as part of the worship service. There may be some. My pastor expositorily preaches through a book of the Bible, making clear the meaning of the text, the context of the text, and the applicability of the text. A pastor friend of mine in Seattle took nearly a year to preach in such a manner through John’s Gospel.

[Antoninus]

how the RC edifice could remotely do anything before its beginning around 395 AD.

That's an arbitrary date affixed by Catholic haters. The Catholic Church goes all the way back to Sts. Peter & Paul. The lie that it began in AD 395 or 337 or 306 or whenever is a Dan-Brownian convenient fiction. Those who propagate this myth expose themselves as historically ignorant.

[Mad Dawg]

A pastor friend of mine in Seattle took nearly a year to preach in such a manner through John’s Gospel.

Wow! That sounds great! Did he write 'em up?

[Manfred the Wonder Dawg]

Thanks for a very sane, thoughtful reply. I depart from your line of reasoning regarding having “overflow” or “more material than planned”. Christ IS more than enough but He shares not His glory with anyone. This is where your wedding dress metaphor breaks down, IMO. Adding ruffles and bows brings additional elements (Mary, I presume) to the gown (Christ) to share in the wedding and all the attention, etc. given the bride and her gown. Christ shares such with nobody. He alone is worthy of adoration. Adding to Him reduces His visibility, obscuring Him with lesser elements.

[Antoninus]

And prayer is ALWAYS a form of worship.

I see. So when a homeless guy asks me for change, he's worshiping me? Is that it?

You folks have perverted the meaning of the word "prayer" so that it fits your bigotry. Prayer is not a form of worship. It's a form of humility. There is no difference between humbly begging your brother who is alive on earth to pray for you than there is humbly begging St. Peter, St. Paul, St. Andrew, St. Therese, or St. Bernadette, all of whom are alive in Heaven, to pray for you. It seems that for many Protestants, humility before God, His angels and His saints is not in the playbook at all.

[papertyger]

Rather a cowardly way to malign someone and skirt the "personal attack" rules isn't it?

No more so than substituting the name of an institution for a particular poster.

[Antoninus]

Your church has been selling you a bill of goods on what a saint really is and whose prayers are being kept in those vials. YOUR prayers and MINE are there.

Sorry, but when the teachings of the Church are backed up with 2,000 years of history, tradition, and Apostolic succession, I tend to believe it, not follow some johnny-come-lately sect with a fancy new spin on what Jesus really meant.

The idea that Christians finally got things right 1,600 years after the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus is simply ludicrous. I guess the Catholics and Orthodox who have been asking the saints to intercede for us for over 1,900 years have just been making God really angry for all that time, eh?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for all your posts, dear sister in Christ!

Regarding the blessed fact as you stated that God keeps every promise, isn't the promise to bring them [Israel] to Christ?

Indeed!

When it comes to prophesy though, I can only offer my musings for the discussion. And in that regard, it seems to me that Israel must first become jealous of the Gentile’s receiving the promise that was theirs - in order that the prophesy of the Song of Moses will be fulfilled:

They have moved me to jealousy with [that which is] not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with [those which are] not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation. – Deuteronomy 32:21

The first step has occurred as Paul noted here:

I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. – Romans 11:11

But Israel is not yet jealous because they do not yet understand Who Christ “is.”

Evidently they cannot overcome logic (Law of Identity, Law of the Excluded Middle.) They continue to expect an earthy Messiah – a man anointed by God – to rule over an earthy Israel at peace with its neighbors. They do not see that the Messiah is both Man and God. It isn’t an either/or.

Likewise, they expect the Messiah to come as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. They do not yet see that He also came as the Lamb of God. It isn’t an either/or.

Likewise, they know that God is One. But they do not yet know that God is One God in Three Persons.

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. - Romans 8:9

But somewhere along the way, God will reveal all of this to them and surely then they will be moved to jealousy thus fulfilling the prophesy of the Song of Moses.

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, [they are] enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, [they are] beloved for the fathers' sakes. – Romans 11:18-28

That, btw, was the great error of Adam Clarke’s interpretation of Rev 3:9 when he said “That the love which was formerly fixed on the Jews is now removed, and transferred to the Gentiles”

God gift and calling is without repentance. (Romans 11:29) There is no limitation on God’s love. It is not an either/or. God is Love. (I John 4:15-21)

Evidently Adam Clarke made another gross error in his disbelief that Jesus Christ was eternally the Son of God.

To God be the glory!

[Mad Dawg]

Thanks for a very sane ...

Okay.
THAT's it!
NOW you're getting personal!
(psst! I have a reputation to uphold here ...)

;-)

It's good to nail down the differences, or to approach doing so, anyway.

I'd say your side articulates a "Zero sum" scheme. There's only so much "worship" (used in a non-technical and inclusive sense) and any that isn't aimed directly at IHS is mis-aimed.

I would resort to my (and, I think. Paul's) "in" language. The PepsiCola Church has "antiphons" before the Invitatory psalm in Daily prayer (usually a cento of Psalm 95 and 96). The antiphon for All Saints Day is "The Lord is glorious in His Saints, Come let us adore him." And that sort of suggests it.

Or, reaching now, if I aim and shoot a bullet at one of the ruffles, in hitting the ruffle I have hit the dress.

[wagglebee]

For what it’s worth, I think if a person were to spend their entire life studying the Gospel of John they would still be seeing new things after decades.

[OLD REGGIE]

I’m sure you can find it without my help.

I'm afraid I can't. Perhaps you or someone else can help me.

Failing that I'll just say "There is no OFFICIAL definition of "Authentic Magisterium"!

It is possible this will bring a reply somewhat more adult than "You're wrong" or a similar inanity.

[Uri’el-2012]

I Think the interpretation “inspiration of God” is a rational one, and that it was breathed silently, not in spoken words in a particular language.

So it would have been written in whatever language was natural to the person into whom God had breathed it.

Beyond that, my belief in a literal inerrant scripture is one of faith more than proof. God certainly could keep the Bible inerrant. If he didn’t, I guess I’ll have to answer for believing otherwise, but I feel that error would be less an issue than to reject his Word.

1,392 posted on June 3, 2008 7:16:57 AM MDT by CharlesWayneCT

The Koine Greek literally says "G-d breathed"
in 2 Timothy 3:16

<2315> qeo,pneustoj theo-pneustos
Meaning: God-breathed, i.e. inspired by God
Origin: from 2316 and 4154
Usage: inspired by God(1).
Notes: (1) Lit God-breathed (2) Lit training which is in (a) Rom 4:23f; Rom 15:4; 2Pe 1:20f

G-d could have chosen any language in the world, however He chose Koine Greek
as it was the "lingua franca" of the time and place and it is extremely precise.
For His good purposes.
It was also used for the translation of the Tanach in the form of the LXX.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

[Mad Dawg]

It is possible this will bring a reply somewhat more adult than "You're wrong" or a similar inanity.

Here, I found this. I believe it's yours:

[DungeonMaster]

Don't Protty's believe in a Guardian Angel? Did you ever request an angel asistence in childhood? It's the same thing.

Have you ever seen any biblical example of anyone doing that?

[papertyger]

Truth be told there's too much of that on either side.

Nonsense.

I've been a FReeper for going on ten years now, both as a Catholic and as a Protestant; I know what I see. The anti-Catholics attack everything we hold dear and trust in excepting the Bible because they have a measure of respect for it.

On the other hand, our responses are muted because we are loathe to attack the Bible, or their superstitious misuse of it.

While I realize you could be referring to ANY derision being too much, rhetorically painting a tit-for-tat scenario is "turning the other cheek" to those who will "turn and rend."