Thoughts?
I think you are pretty much correct.
Catholics worship God alone.
It appears that the distinction that we make, prayer as an entreaty being different from worship, is the sticking point with some non-Catholic Christians who equate prayer with worship.
As for Mary being dead, for Catholics, she and all saints are not only still living, but are basking in the beatific vision of God.
Thus, we do not pray to “dead people” because we are certain that they have eternal life in God.
(I believe I have stated the Catholic case correctly; more knowledgable Catholics, please correct me if I am wrong.)
Right on the money.
I’m getting a headache :-).
I’m Catholic, my husband is Protestant, discussing religious differences is not my cup of tea, unless we’re discussing obama’s so called “church”.
Ave Maria
Hail Mary, full of grace,
the Lord is with Thee.
Blessed art Thou among women
And Blessed is the fruit of Thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God
Pray for us sinners now
and at the hour of our death.
Amen
Yes. It’s difficult to understand where some see “worship” in the above.
A while back (not too long ago) there were some rumblings about declaring Mary as co-redemptorix. Pope John Paul II eventually backed off. Even though Mary palyed a very unique role in salvation history declaring her co-redemptorix can be a little dicey in that it may be seen as her role is equal to Christ’s passion, death and resurrection (which it is not). I really think JP II had to have his Polish enthusiasm curbed a bit by a few reputable theologians—Whoa boy, not so fast. Also, I believe the Orthodox Church put their two cents in and said “not a good idea”. JP II had always wanted a better relationship with Eastern Orthodoxy, and saw that this declaration would sour things up a bit.
Scott Hahn’s book “Hail, Holy Queen” explains Catholic Doctrine on Mary quite well, though your basic understanding from your post seems to me to be pretty good.
Why did you ping me?
Your entire article is right out of the Catholic play-book...Word for word...You don’t seem to have an independant thought on the issue...I’ll bet you’ve already purchased your Professional grade Bingo chips...
Second, this post suggests you have been lurking for some time. Correct?
Do you "revere" your hero's to the extent that a new term, let's call it "hyper reverence" must be developed to explain the depth of your reverence?
None of the "revered" persons you have mentioned have Shrines built to honor them, have appeared in visions and have given "secrets" to save the world, and are the recipients of "worship" from some. (Though it is not 'official' teaching it cannot be denied there is such a thing as Mary Worship).
You are comparing apples and oranges in comparing the Hyper-Dulia "reverance" shown to Mary and your "mortal" hero's.
Finally, I think it important that you recognize there is more than one school of thought concerning the "veneration" shown to Mary.
In the prior thread I note that you were offered 100% Catholic and Catholic Apologetic material. You will probably find the same material offered by your Catholic "friends".
Now this is only a personal observation, but I am of the opinion you are not interested in the "other side". If that is so you should stay strictly in the Catholic Apologetic camp to avoide confusion.
If you are open minded say so. I and others would be willing to provide material which shows the "other" story.
Finally, you appear to be shocked by the differing opinions and bickering generated by your first thread. If you want only Catholic supporting replies you should seriously consider closing the thread.
they do admit that they worship Mary, they just won't admit that it's wrong.
Consider what passes for worship among protestants, and you will see the root of the problem: they sing songs about Jesus, hear a lecture about Him, say a few prayers (often of the form “O Lord, we just wanna praise You. . .”), and call it worship.
When they see or hear anything of the traditional devotion to Mary shown by traditional Christians (whether Orthodox, Latin or the few Anglicans who still ‘get it’), it’s already beyond what they themselves do by way of ‘worship’ directed to God, that naturally they are confused.
You seem like a nice, sincere soul. I’ve questioned a lot of things myself over the years.
I think the problem I have is when people will lay flowers before a “statue” of Mary. That is just way too close to how the pagans worshipped for my taste and I know Jews never laid flowers down before any kind of stone icon or carving, etc. I know Jesus kept the Jewish law perfectly so that’s my take on that one.
Also, as for asking any of the Saints to pray, while on one level I can see the point, my only issue is we are not to talk with dead people. My dad died recently and I wouldn’t ask him to intercede for me, so why would I ask any other dead person to pray for me. As for the “Saint” recognition, even that gets a little fuzzy since the Catholic church has some very procedural process that they do before they determine a person a Saint. I guess for now I’ll just stick with praying to the only dead person that I know actually rose from the dead - Jesus - and the live people I know.
As the Scriptures say, “to him that thinks it sin, it is sin” (that’s my paraphrase).
God bless you as you continue on your journey.
FOUR CHURCHES
INTRODUCTION
The word “church” refers to people who are called out on some definite principle(s), and come together for some definite purpose(s). In the Scriptures, the particular people(s) who are thus called out, and the principle(s), and purpose(s) under which they are called out, must be determined from the context of the particular passage(s) (local context) you are studying. A common mistake made by many Baptists (as I identify with Baptist peoples) in our day is that of applying the same grand usage of the word to every context where the word “church” is found. This kind of failure to rightly divide the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15), and failure to compare spiritual things with spiritual (1 Corinthians 2:13), has led to Baptist “Bride-ism,” Romanism, Campbellism (”Church of Christ” and “Disciples of Christ,” American denominations which teach baptismal regeneration) and many other cults and factions. Failure to distinguish between various usages and the difference between peoples according to context (see 1 Corinthians 10:32) is also the cause of the general weakness, in our times, with regard to Scripture knowledge and application. Many pastors, and others, spiritualize and devotionalize the Scriptures away, to hold either to a modern evangelical or ecumenical use for the word “church” (sometimes called the “Universal Church”), or to a century-old, hyper-local church position (which I call “Carrollism” after B.H. Carroll), which tends to promote an extreme successionism and, in the end, denies the fullness of Christ. Both extremes come preconceived to the Scriptures, based on motive: the motive of the given adherents.
Temples (or gatherings) of Pagan worship are called “churches” (Acts 19:37), because they housed (or included) people called out and assembled; and that, to worship a false deity. They were meeting the basic definition of the word “church” as they were called out and assembled. Is the King James Bible mistaken by using the word “churches” in Acts 19:37? Certainly not! The Holy Spirit gave us such references so that we would know better than to believe that the word “church” always fits the “Baptist Brider’s” or the Vatican’s definitions (there are similarities between the doctrines and leadership styles of Rome and those of the “Baptist Briders,” especially in Roman Catholic-dominated countries where Baptist Briders have operated).
The root of the English word “church” is akin to the Scottish and Old English “kirk,” identifying something that “belongs to the Lord.” The word itself, as used in the English King James Bible, however, does not determine which lord, the true Lord God, or a false deity. This must be determined (and properly so) from the context.
It is interesting to note the New Testament books in which the word “church” is never used. They are Mark, Luke, John, 2 Timothy, Titus, 2 Peter, 2 John and Jude. The books containing the most frequent uses of the word “church” are Acts, Revelation, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians and Ephesians. The reasons will yield fruitful study, and so we give this listing. We don’t have space here, however, to follow this line of study out. You may want to do that yourself.
I ask my readers to consider one additional thing by way of introduction to our subject. If you were a Grecian, reading a Greek Bible, you would run across the Greek word “ekklesia” in the Old Testament for congregation or assembly. If you were a Hebrew, reading a New Testament translated into Hebrew, you would read the word “kahal” instead of either the word church or ekklesia. This is interesting in that it means that it would be difficult for Baptist-Briders to use the same arguments in those languages that they use by their manipulation and construction of English definitions.
James Christopher Smith was correct when he wrote that the word “church” “is never applied to a building or edifice, but always to people; never to the place of assembly, but to those assembled; not to the place of worship, but to the worshippers.”
The following will be a study from the exact words of the King James Bible. It will disregard tradition and the Baptist handbooks. The author encourages all readers to examine the Scripture references as you come across them.
Now on to visit the Four Churches. First we meet........
THE CHURCH IN THE WILDERNESS
Acts 7:38
The first “church” in the Bible consisted of the Children of Israel; an assembly which was called out of Egypt into the wilderness for definite purposes (e.g. Deuteronomy 4:1-13). This is the church in the wilderness, led by God’s servant Moses (Acts 7:38). Israel was corporately God’s firstborn son (Ex. 4:22) and God called that son out of Egypt (Hosea 11:1). Yes, Hosea prophesied of God’s only begotten Son, Jesus (Matthew 2:15), because Israel itself, as a corporate Nation, was an Old Testament type of Christ, according to the flesh. The fact that Hosea chapter 11 refers to the Nation of Israel coming out from under Pharaoh’s bondage, however, is in no way negated. The “church in the wilderness” (Acts 7:38) consisted of a single chosen and assembled Nation. In the case of Israel, not all of its individual members were saved, especially not in any New Testament sense. Not all of the Israelites in that “church” were the spiritual seed of Abraham.
To emphasize once again, in Acts 7:38 we read about a church that was a nation. This church was a political as well as a spiritual entity, and at times the spiritual part was all but non-existent. This church was a kingdom among the kingdoms of the earth. This church had earthly geographic and political boundaries. This nation-church had physical land grant promises made to it by God Himself. This church had laws that governed all earthly aspects of day-to-day life, similar to civil and criminal codes in modern nations. The Church of the current dispensation, the Body of Christ, on the other hand, has no earthly political position, as did Israel, because the Body Church is a heavenly people, not an earthly people. Also, no local church can be likened to the political earthly church spoken of in Acts 7:38 as far as its geopolitical presence. God promised no territory, political or otherwise, to either the Church which is Christ’s Body, or to any New Testament local assembly! The New Testament Church, while made up of “strangers and pilgrims on the earth” (Hebrews 11:13; 1 Peter 2:11), is subject to the laws of the various countries where Christians might be residing.
Christians in our current dispensation are not instructed to build separate Christian political entities reminiscent of Old Testament Israel. This mistake was made by Calvin in Geneva, and is attempted by the British Israelites and Postmillennial Reconstructionist cults. A nation may be overwhelmingly Bible-influenced and Christian-influenced, as was the United States at the time of its founding, but the New Testament Church has no land or territory promises, the likes of those God made to Abraham and his physical seed. Pastors are not kings on earth, nor are they earthly priests. Although faithful believers shall reign as kings and as priests unto God in the Millennial Kingdom, we do not assume any such position before we have our new bodies (Philippians 3:21). Pastors, therefore, are wrong to take to themselves the prestige or stature of kings or of priests. The error of men in the ministry assuming priestly position over other believers began to occur more and more from the third century, and that is why there is a Vatican State as a political entity with a king sitting, calling himself the Bishop of Rome and the Vicar of Christ. There are many pastors today who use Old Testament Israeli national kingdom passages to give themselves superiority and power over common people in their churches. They are mini-popes and their churches are mini-Vaticans.
Some of the Israelites were mere specks of the “dust of the earth” (Genesis 13:14-17), enjoying in their earthly lives God’s blessings and protection upon the physical Nation through which He would bring forth His Savior and King Son (the promised Seed of Genesis 3:15; Galatians 3:16). Those were mere earthly seed. Others, though, followed the faith of Abraham, and are typified by the untellable stars of heaven (Genesis 15:5, 6). Those will, in the resurrection and regeneration of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-7; 54:13-17; Jeremiah 31:34; Hebrews ch. 8; Ezekiel 36, 37; etc.), ascend to be more than a mere earthly people, along with receiving the land and Kingdom promises made to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and Christ. This, though, is not the New Testament Church (the Body of Christ).
Israel was a called out “congregation,” and thus could be called a “church” when mentioned in historical reference in the New Testament. It is the use of New Testament literary terminology to describe an Old Testament entity. See Exodus 16:2; 29:44; 33:7; Lev. 10:17; 16:33; Psalm 22:22; Isaiah 14:13; Joel 2:16. Just take your concordance and start looking up all of the Old Testament references to “congregation,” and you will see that this word describes Israel.
Israel was an “assembly,” again meeting the definition of a church (See Ecclesiastes title). As with “congregation” use your concordance and run the words “assembly” and “solemn assembly(ies)” and “assemble.” Examples include Isa. 11:12; 48:14; Jer. 4:5; Eze. 11:17; Deu. 9:10; 10:4; 18:16; Ps. 107:32; 111:1; Lev. 23:36; Num. 29:35; Neh. 8:18.
Treat what we are writing here with this caution: Israel, as an Old Testament “church,” should never be mistaken for any New Testament Church, or for the local churches of the New Testament era. Israel must never be equated with the “church” of Covenant Theology (of the Calvinistic, Amillennial or Postmillennial Reformers). We are allowing contexts to determine the usage of the term, “church.” We are not mixing up distinct bodies of people. The Holy Spirit keeps distinct bodies of people distinct (1 Cor. 10:32).
The members of this Old Testament Church, Israel, were those physically born in the seed line of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob with the promises and privileges thereof. Members could be added from among Gentiles—”strangers,” under certain God-ordained conditions, including circumcision (Ex. 12:48; 33:34; Josh. 5:2-5; many other passages). Membership could also be stripped (Ex. 12:19; Lev. 17:8; Num. 15:30; 1 Corinthians 10:5; many other passages).
Secondly, we examine….