Apologists Concerned About Rick Warren's Alignment With 'Holy Father'

Charisma News ^ | 12/3/14 | Mark Andrews

[marshmallow]

"Christian unity" is one of those terms that stir up a whole spectrum of—sometimes emotional—opinions.

On the one hand, we know that Jesus prayed to the Father concerning future believers "that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you" (John 17:21a, NIV).

On the other hand, charismatics know it is almost pointless to discuss the gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12, 14) with Baptists or most anyone else from a mainline denomination. And Protestants of just about any stripe get riled up when they hear Catholics talking about papal infallibility or their adoration of the Virgin Mary.

It's on this latter point that Rick Warren, senior pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, and successful author, has waded into a hornet's nest of controversy by telling a Catholic News Service interviewer that Protestants and Catholics "have far more in common than what divides us" and that Catholics do not "worship Mary like she's another god."

Regarding Warren's view that Catholics do not worship Mary, Matt Slick, writing on the website of the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry, goes into great detail with material from Roman Catholic sources that say Mary is "the all holy one," is to be prayed to, worshipped, that she "brings us the gifts of eternal life" and she "made atonement for the sins of man."

If that's not putting her in the place of Christ as a god-like figure to be worshipped, then what is it?

"We believe in Trinity, the Bible, the resurrection, and that salvation is through Jesus Christ. These are the big issues," Warren says. "But the most important thing is if you love Jesus, we're on the same team."

To Warren's point about being on the same team, Slick.....

[CynicalBear]

>>but what you are actually rejecting is the Tradition of the Apostles, which St. Paul explicitly told us to keep.<<

Please show proof that what Paul was referring to as "tradition" is what the Catholic Church teaches today. No Catholic has been able to do that for me.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"If Mary was prevented from sinning, then she had no free will in the matter."

Yes, that wold be true --- but only only if we were talking about Actual Sin, the sin one commits.

It is not true of Original Sin, the sin one inherits.

At the beginning of their lives, both Adam and Eve, in Eden, enjoyed Original Innocence, Original Justice, Original Blessing, Original Grace. Despite all this, they sinned. They still had free will. So would Mary have had free will. Otherwise we are all nothing but ventriloquists' dummies, sock-puppets, androids, and this world is the Matrix and whole shebang is a farce.

[metmom]

However, falsely conflating a reverent gesture such as kneeling or bowing as a sign of respect for the Mother of Christ with Divine Worship, which is reserved for God alone, certainly qualifies as "playing semantic games."

No. God said *Do not bow down to the carved images.*.

It needs no *interpretation*. Everyone can see what bowing down is and it breaks God's commandment.

[metmom]

God says, *Do not bow down to them.*

Plain and simple.

Bowing to them is bowing to them.

[daniel1212]

Now, this quote is in several places on the internet with EXACTLY THE SAME OTHER QUOTES. It is repeatedly cut and pasted by people who have clearly never read the original source - as I have - or who are deliberately hiding what else comes after it in the same book. Is there any point to rehashing what has already been shown to be a misrepresentation?.. Elsie couldn’t even spell the archbishop’s name correctly! All..What’s the point of trying to engage someone in conversation about a source he/she clearly can’t get right?

I have not been following this debate closely, but here your response is more of a rant rather than dealing with the support for the alternative interpretation (which was/is not necessarily mutually incompatible in the eyes of all, incldg. Kenrick as it appears you are not reading all that Elsie posted, for that quote is prefaced by,

And Catholic archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick (1806-1896), while yet seeking to support Peter as the rock , stated that,

Emp. mine. Here it is clearly stated that Kenrick supported Peter as the rock, and the spelling is correct, even if the end attribution has a k instead of an r, while the quote proved a link to the source (cached here ).

Thus nothing is being "hid," is misrepresented, which charge is another overreach by you, at best. It is perfectly valid to use such a statement from an author while noting that the author does not share the same conclusion as the writer who uses it, and who even provides access to the source. Some RCs authors do likewise in citing Prot authors.

You yourself invoked a edited quote of Luther that appears on some RC sites (indicating you never read the context), unaccompanied by any note stating what his argument and conclusion was, as well as utterly failing to even provide the source, let alone a link:

As Luther said, “We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all.”

RCs authors also sometime cite ECFs as if they are supporting the RC apologist when they are not. And do not even mention many other RC quotes of Luther, which also abound on the Internet.

And what would be misrepresenting Kenrick would be to invoke him as one who always supported the infallible Roman papacy as V1 declared it.

[Resettozero]

“Listen to the church.” —Jesus

Abbreviated quote, removed from its correct context.

(St. Thomas Aquinas, the real one, would have known better.)

[Arthur McGowan]

Are you now claiming, contrary to the Catholic Church, that Jesus human nature is also divine?

This question has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said.

The Second Person of the Trinity has existed from all eternity, with a divine nature.

At a point in history, he was conceived in Mary's womb. At that instant, he began to exist with a human nature. Thus, from that time forward, he will always exist with a divine nature and a human nature.

He is one divine Person with a divine nature and a human nature.

The divine Person has existed from eternity. His divine nature has existed from eternity. His human nature began to exist when Mary conceived him in her womb.

Mary conceived him in her womb and gave birth to him. She is therefore his mother.

Because Jesus Christ is ONE PERSON, who is God, and Mary is his mother, Mary is called "Mother of God."

[daniel1212]

Yes, once again the interpretive nature of much RC teaching, this time the “unanimous consent” of the fathers?

[Resettozero]

Mary, the mother of Jesus, when she is raised from the dead at the next Resurrection, will be shocked (if she is told) to find millions of people had prayed millions of prayers to her or in her name while she was still dead.

[Gamecock]

Why would God, choosing and ordering all things from eternity, and willing to give us His precious and perfect Son, choose a damaged mother with a blasted, twisted human nature who wasn't even as good as Eve was, fresh from th hand of God in Eden.

Why would God condescend to save a damaged mother race with a blasted, twisted human nature?

[Arthur McGowan]

His divine nature is what makes Him God and you say He didn’t get that from Mary. That should settle the issue that she is not the mother of God which is a deceptive phrase used by Catholics.

Jesus Christ is one divine Person, who has existed from eternity. His divine nature has existed from eternity.

His human nature began to exist at a certain point in time, in the womb of Mary. Therefore she is his mother.

Since Mary is the mother of a Person who is God, she is called "Mother of God."

[Arthur McGowan]

What is gratuitously asserted may be gratuitously denied.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"It needs no *interpretation*. Everyone can see what bowing down is and it breaks God's commandment."

Except when, as the Bible shows, it doesn't.

"Bowing clearly is not the point, which can occur when you are doing a country dance" ---Dutchboy88

Metmom, I'm quite sure you know that what’s forbidden is bowing in adoration; not bowing as a sign of honor or respect.

Can I show that Biblically? Sure. It permeates Old Testament culture.

I looked up “kneel(ing)” and “bow(ing)” in the good old BibleGateway Keyword Search, and found so many references it would be exhausting to list them all.

Genesis 23:7 Then Abraham rose and bowed down before the people of that land

Genesis 33:3-7 Jacob bowed down to the ground seven times as he approached his brother Esau

maidservants and their children bow down to Esau

Leah and her children bow down

Joseph and Rachel bow. Etc. etc!

Genesis 37 Joseph’s dreams: his brothers’ sheaves of corn -— and then the sun and moon and eleven stars —— bow down to him. Later his brothers actually do bow down to him with their faces to the ground

Genesis 48:11 Joseph bows to Jacob “with his face to the earth.”

1 Kings 1:15 Bathsheba bows low (face to the ground) and kneels before the aged king David

2 Kings 1:13 the captain kneels before the prophet Elijah, and “prays” —begs-— him to spare his life and the life of his 50 men

Moses bows down to father-in-law; Ruth bows down to Boaz;

David prostrates before Jonathan;

David prostrates to Saul;

Abigail prostrates to David;

Saul prostrates to Samuel;

Nathan prostrates to David;

Obadiah bows to the ground before Elijah; the prophets in Jericho bow before Elisha;

the “whole assembly” bows low and prostrates before David;

David bows to the Temple;

David prostrates to Jerusalem;

God causes the king’s adversaries to bow prostrate on the ground and “lick the dust at his feet”;

the sons of the oppressors will bow to Zion.

OK, pretty obviously the patriarchs, prophets, and kings knew about the commandment not to bow down and worship anything or anybody but God. But here they are bowing, kneeling, and prostrating, and God is not offended. Why?

Because the commandment clearly forbids bowing and worshiping a creature as the Creator; it does not forbid kneeling or bowing (to king, prophet, father, husband or brother) as a form of honor.

The commandment does not prohibit kneeling or bowing to give honor. It prohibits adoration toward anyone but Almighty God.

Now here’s an interesting episode:

1 Kings 2:19

When Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, the king stood up to meet her, bowed down to her and sat down on his throne. He had a throne brought for the king’s mother, and she sat down at his right hand.

Here’s the King bowing to his mother. Does that mean she’s equal to God? No. It doesn’t even mean she’s equal to the King. It means he’s pleased to honor her because of her royal dignity, her relationship as Queen Mother.

As our mindset gets further and further from traditional custom and culture, it gets harder and harder to grasp what was once the universal language of physical gesture (he salute, the tip of the hat, the bow, the genuflection, the handclasp, the curtsey, the kiss) and put each expression in its proper perspective.

Dutchboy88 understands this (LINK)

"Bowing clearly is not the point, which can occur when you are doing a country dance" ---Dutchboy88

[Resettozero]

...she is called "Mother of God."

By millions of people over hundreds of years, all who received improper instruction from wicked men. Everyone winds up in error and worshipping an ancient goddess renamed Mary by the RCC.

[Resettozero]

What is gratuitously asserted may be gratuitously denied.

Of course it may, by anyone who truly doesn't want to know what is true. Very glibly denied.

[Elsie]

The place to get Catholic doctrine from is the Catechism.

So; is this an admission that the Catholic Leaders of the past were POORLY Catechized?

Or that they had no idea what they were writing about?

Pick which way you want it to be.

[Elsie]

Please define "church" as the Greek usage of the word used in that text.

The 'church' is what Catholics SAY it is:

Scripture plus tradition.

I have posted both.

They disagree.

Now what???

[Elsie]

Why would you try to come up with so many hypotheticals to support Rome's teachings?

[Elsie]

This old coot still has it!

[Elsie]

Maybe; but you've forgotten what to DO with it!

--Mrs.Elsie(Your glasses are by the computer.)