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.

[af_vet_1981]

If you read the Scriptures carefully, not every believer was "baptized" in water (the thief on the cross, Publius, et al). Immersion was certainly practiced and several of our congregation have been immersed at various gatherings. No commonality. But, the real "baptism" is that which places the believer into the Body of Christ. Has the Holy Spirit of God done this to you?

1. I understand you have not had apostolic baptism as the LORD Jesus Christ commanded. What dost hinder you ? Surely it cannot be a drought of water or apostolic churches.
2. Yes. His word is within my heart as a burning fire, Pharisees notwithstanding.

[Resettozero]

Or, if you prefer to hear Kristyn Getty sing the lyrics to the song her husband Keith (piano) helped to compose...

All Souls Orchestra 'In Christ Alone'

[CynicalBear]

>>The woman is identified as the mother of "a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne" (Rev 12:5) Later, that son is also named; his name is Christ (Rev. 12:10,17).<<

Nice try but that doesn't work for you. First of all it was a sign that appeared in heaven NOT a woman. Look at the first verse.

Revelation 12:1 A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.

Now, if you insist that is actually Mary let's look at the next verse.

Revelation 12:2 She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth.

If the woman is Mary is she also at that point in pain about to give birth?

Or do you say that the sign only represents Mary? If that is the case are you prepared to prove that Mary was in Egypt for exactly three and one half years with Jesus hiding from Herod? Are you also prepared to defend that Zion in the following passage is also Mary?

Isaiah 66:7 Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a male. 8 Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children. 9 Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the LORD: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God. 10 Be glad for Jerusalem and rejoice over her, all who love her. Rejoice greatly with her, all who mourn over her--

There you see that it is clear that Zion gives birth to a male child. A male child!! Where do we see that prophesy fulfilled later in scripture?

Revelation 12:5 She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne,

Well there it is!! Now, please show that Zion is actually Mary. Also show how scripture never speaks of anyone other than a woman giving birth to a son.

Also while you are at it would you please show how the daughter of Zion in Micah 4:9-10 is Mary rather than the nation of Israel?

All of you who would purport that Mary is the woman of Revelation 12 have a lot of explanation to do.

[CynicalBear]

>>so, if I love my Father a lot, I don't have enough love left over for my Mother.<<

Again, "man's wisdom" types of examples are really lame. Do you express love to your children or father the same way that you do your spouse? The love your spouse deserves is the same as the love you give your father or mother? God says "do not give my glory to another".

[redleghunter]

Good posting. Problem is this is the 5th time the same passages were presented in context with the same out of context responses coming back to us.

[CynicalBear]

>>isn't it absolutely amazing that the Holy Spirit influenced and guided the Catholic church for one thousand six hundred years<<

The Holy Spirit would never ever guide a church to incorporate paganism as the Catholic Church has.

[CynicalBear]

See! I told you Catholics don’t believe it.

[Dutchboy88]

"I understand you have not had apostolic baptism"

Well, in spite of the propaganda your organization may have tried to brainwash you with, you have never been baptized by an apostle, either. If you believe the baton was handed off by men like Vigilius, or Honorius, or John XXII, or Formosus, or Sergius III, or Gregory IX, or...again, my fingers are tired, then you are to be pitied. At least we do not need the props of a cult.

[FourtySeven]

Merry Christmas everyone! Remember the reason for the season.

Maybe tomorrow, maybe everyone give this thread a break. Have some egg nog. Start a fire. Eat some turkey and ham. Spend some time with the family. You know, celebrate Christmas.

I don’t think Jesus would mind.

Have a good one regardless everyone! Peace and long life, shalom and pacem.

http://youtu.be/9T4WB2zfmps

[CynicalBear]

You go right ahead and keep defending the concept. I’m going to take a hint from the Holy Spirit who inspired scripture who never once called her the mother of God and I’m thinking that was for a reason. God had much to say about the “queen of heaven” concept and none of it good.

[af_vet_1981]

Well, in spite of the propaganda your organization may have tried to brainwash you with, you have never been baptized by an apostle, either. If you believe the baton was handed off by men like Vigilius, or Honorius, or John XXII, or Formosus, or Sergius III, or Gregory IX, or...again, my fingers are tired, then you are to be pitied. At least we do not need the props of a cult.

Yet I speak of the great apostolic commission to teach all the Gentiles and baptize them with water in the name of the Father, Son, and a Holy Spirit.

[rwa265]

Can you show me anything in the Catechism that contradicts this? That says Jesus will grant an intercession from Mary contrary to the will of the Father?

Can you show me anything in the history of the church or the BIBLE that states that Jesus will grant an intercession from Mary at all?

---

It is you that wrote “Rome teaches that He STILL obeys His mommy.” The Catechism does encourage Catholics to ask Mary to intercede for us in the hope that Jesus will grant those intercessions.

But it seems that you are further saying Rome teaches that Jesus must grant those intercessions.

Is this what you are saying? That Rome teaches that Jesus will grant an intercession from Mary even if it is contrary to the will of the Father?

[Dutchboy88]

"Yet I speak of the great apostolic commission to teach all the Gentiles and baptize them with water in the name of the Father, Son, and a Holy Spirit."

Yet you speak of an error that you have manufactured...nowhere does Jesus say "water". And, I am curious which apostle baptized you. And, you must let us know your secret for staying alive for 2000 years.

[Iscool]

I listen to Jesus, not to the Jewish laws, whatever the number.

Jesus was talking condemnation for not following the Law...

25:42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
Mat 25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
Mat 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
Mat 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

The works you are doing to gain your salvation are the same works Jesus taught...So yes, you do listen to the Jewish law...

Unfortunately, that eliminates the revelation from Jesus to Paul to the church that we are no longer under the laws, but Grace...

You're in the wrong dispensation...

[CynicalBear]

>>yet his faith and his works counted for righteousness<<

No it doesn't. James 2:22 only says that his faith was completed as in "brought to fruition". It does NOT say his works counted for righteousness. It was his faith that counted for righteousness. His works only showed his faith.

[CynicalBear]

And we will keep posting the in context that those new lurkers may see the truth.

[af_vet_1981]

Yet you speak of an error that you have manufactured...nowhere does Jesus say "water". And, I am curious which apostle baptized you. And, you must let us know your secret for staying alive for 2000 years.

1. I assume a certain scriptural and cultural literacy when discussing Messiah and his Jewish Apostles. The Mikva, or water baptism is one of them, accepted by all Orthodox and Protestant denominations. Fundamentalists absolutely believe in water baptism. They are Baptists. Evangelicals believe in water baptism. Now I know you do not believe in water baptism for believers.
2. This, as well as the Trinity, are known issues among Pentecostals and cause some of them to be labeled as cults.

[xzins]

Oh come on, CB. You know there’s nothing in the bible that says virgins getting pregnant and having Sons of God is the same as Ishtar worship.

That’s bunk.

[CynicalBear]

>>You know there’s nothing in the bible that says virgins getting pregnant and having Sons of God is the same as Ishtar worship.<<

Jeremiah 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.

Who was that "queen of heaven"?

Jeremiah 44:17 But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done,

Who was that "queen of heaven"?

Ezekiel 8:13 And He said to me, "Yet you will see still greater abominations which they are committing." 14 Then he brought me to the entrance of the north gate of the house of the LORD, and I saw women sitting there, mourning the god Tammuz.

Who was Tammuz the son of?

If you don't know the answers to those questions how do you know what to avoid that God called "abominations"? "Bunk" you say?

[Springfield Reformer]

The view you present is the opposite of the tradition of Fundamentalist and Evangelical born again experiences and much closer to the Catholic persuasion model, so to speak. You must have noticed that.

I don't believe you are correct.  However, because you have left certain assumptions unstated, I am forced to guess at your full meaning, and so I may err in stating your position. If so, please feel free to correct me.  The essence of the problem is this.  Does faith act:

1) independent of reason, or
2) logically prior to reason, or
3) in equal partnership with reason, or
4) as the weaker or stronger half of the partnership?  

The above may not be a perfect description of all the categories, but it is at least the beginnings of an outline, and I think it covers the categories of interest to us.

Catholicism, formally, I believe, has rejected fideism.  Fideism is the first category stated above, faith acting independent of reason.  This is what (and I speculate here) I think you are associating with the Fundamentalist/Evangelical position (hereinafter F/E), the idea being that faith just zaps you out of the blue and instantly your mind is full of right beliefs.  The good news is that although this view may explain much of what goes on in the liberal churches, i.e., those who have surrendered to postmodernism's rejection of rational truth altogether, it does NOT describe the vast majority of F/E believers.  I can say this with some confidence because the conservative F/E's are my people, and I have been among them my entire life.  I know what is being taught in the poorly heated basement Sunday School classes of conservative F/E churches, and it is NOT the abandonment of all reason for emotionally driven impulses of a purely subjective faith.

But this does not mean that Catholicism formally operates the same as the conservative F/E, as there are other categories to choose from in describing the relationship between faith and reason.  As I understand it, and again, feel free to correct me if I get this wrong, Catholicism is basically Thomistic, at least formally.  Thomism allows that faith and reason have a nearly equal role in persuasion.  That is, by either reason or by faith, one might discover certain divine facts, such as the existence of God.

But Thomism is a rejection of the Augustinian model, which did not dispute the value of reason, but gave faith the place of logical priority, such that Augustine could say that to know, we must first believe.  By this he did not mean we must believe in disreputable facts.  We do not need to believe the moon is made of green cheese by faith, as if that will fix bad data.  What he means is we cannot perceive the truth of certain kinds of intangible facts, for example the existence of God, without a starting point of readiness to believe.

But Thomism turns that order on its head. Thomas' view of what is called the "noetic effect of the fall," was that the fall did not ruin reason to such an extent it could not be used to determine, for example, the existence of God.  Thus Aquinas raises reason from servant of faith to equal partner with faith.  From a conservative perspective, this is highly problematic, because the philosophical schools that were spawned by Thomism expanded this equality back into a mutual independence of faith from reason.  That is, either faith OR reason could be used to arrive at a knowledge of divine truth.  On the foundation of this horrendous conclusion the entire edifice of enlightenment rationalism was built, and what an unwholesome progeny it has produced!  The end result has been a return to fideism, only this time the emphasis has been the abandonment of truth as an objective reality in the existential and postmodern expressions of the idea.

Now I say formally, because in praxis I see something quite degenerate from Thomism.  Again, my Catholic relatives up north.  They are liberal and they are fideists.  Catholics here on FR so often complain about their poorly catechized brethren, but they need to understand it isn't entirely the fault of the poor beleaguered parish leadership. The culture as a whole is being fractured by a cultural Marxism that is fideist to the core.  It lies at the root of the liberal subjectivism that is presently balkanizing us into all manner of competing victim classes.  This is a deliberate strategy of the left, and it is fully implemented in the indoctrination patterns of the public education system, the entertainment industry, higher education, etc.  It is daunting indeed.  There is no path out simply by "doing better" with catechism.  This applies equally well to F/Es.

So where then do F/Es fall on this spectrum?  Conservative F/Es pretty much follow the reformed epistemology, with varying degrees of consistency, depending on the particular tradition.  Which means we are much closer to Augustine than Aquinas.  See option 2 above.  Faith is still the precedent step in logic, and is necessary given the severely damaging effects of the fall.  Our reason as unregenerate persons is so defective we come up with monstrosities like Marxism and think, against all facts, we're making the world a better place. But once we have faith, and are born again, coming to trust in Christ, through the work of the Holy Spirit our reason is then supplied with the unabridged version of reality we need in order to use reason rightly.  

But neither is reason set aside. If anything it is made stronger.  It is given an anchor point in God's reality.  From that anchor we can reason from universal principles we find in divine revelation to novel circumstances we encounter in the course of life.  When the Bible was written, it was not possible to even think of freezing a human embryo, but because we have revelation AND right reason subjected to it, we can know how we should approach this new situation, because the divine principles are timeless, and will always apply, and can be applied with reason to aid us.

And this is how we avoid the trap of postmodern subjectivism.  We will not believe disreputable facts, no matter which "victim group" holds those facts as sacred cows. There is objective truth, and it can be discovered.  Global warming? Show me. Gay marriage is harmless?  Prove it.  Islam is the Religion of Peace? Baloney. Book of Mormon tells "the rest of the story?" Not if it can't be backed up with both Scripture and history.

And the same applies to our question of pope lists.  Facts do not stop being important when we have faith.  In reality, they become even more important than they were before. Those who worship God must do so in spirit and in truth.  God requires us to love Him how?

Luke 10:27  And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

Fact-checking is obedience to the love we have for God.  That's why us F/Es do it.  We love God. It's pretty much just that simple.

SR: Thomas on the other hand admits up front he's not there yet. Like the Bereans, he sets a reasonable condition, corroborating evidence. Does Jesus reprimand him for desiring evidence? Or does Jesus offer him the evidence he seeks?

AF: I think it erroneous to project that view to the Apostles as they were living in real time. They were already believers, already sheep, save Judas who was lost. The Resurrection had just happened. The Holy Spirit had not, for lack of a better phrase, traded places with Messiah yet. The Apostle Thomas is a wonderful lesson to those that believe, but not to an unbeliever looking for an excuse to insist on evidence rather than faith.

No projection necessary.  Thomas explicitly said he would not believe unless a factual condition was met:

John 20:24-25  But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.  (25)  The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

I choose not to quibble with the Apostle Thomas' own words. What is the spiritual state of one who rejects the resurrection? I know Thomas was elect, and the eventual outcome certain.  But in spite of ten other eye witnesses, all of whom he knew personally, he chose to set a condition for belief, a point at which, in his personal, private judgment, the truth could be assured.  He wanted to see the risen Jesus with his own eyes, touch Him with his own hands.  Jesus accommodated him.  

But your dichotomy between faith and evidence is intriguing. I do not see the two as in conflict, but as reinforcing each other, as stated above.  Thomas wanted evidence, because he wanted a reason to believe.  The Pharisees demanded a sign, because they were looking for an excuse to disbelieve. When reason has innocent motives and good information, it can perform a godly and useful service, up to and including demonstrating our love for God.  When it is merely a tool to further rebellion, it will only lead to dark places, no matter how brilliantly executed.  

Peace,

SR