Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

alex, you said;

Veneration of relics, of all things, is entirely biblical.

then cited Acts 19:12 in support of the claim that veneration of relics is "fully biblical".

Here it is again, with the preceding verse;

11 Now God worked unusual miracles by the hands of Paul, 12 so that even handkerchiefs or aprons were brought from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out of them.

We see there that unusual miracles were being done, yet we do not see much of anything in the way of this so-called "veneration" for "relics" themselves -- which is the thing which you were needing to establish, but failed to do.

As towards relics themselves, interestingly enough a relic of Moses, which when that item or "thing" was not a 'relic' of the past per se, but was one of then present-day use, apparently provided miraculous relief from snakebite, from which some of the Israelites had been dying of, the snakes themselves having been sent among them by the Lord, in the first place (Numbers 21:6).

Later, when this very same bronze 'serpent on a pole' object was no longer being used in the original way, and was thus a relic from the past which persons "venerated" and burned incense unto; was destroyed for that reason, for having become a superstitious relic;

2 Kings 18:4

He removed the high places and broke the sacred pillars, cut down the wooden image[a] and broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made; for until those days the children of Israel burned incense to it, and called it Nehushtan.[b]
Footnotes
a. 2 Kings 18:4 Hebrew Asherah, a Canaanite goddess
b. 2 Kings 18:4 Literally Bronze Thing

What else is entirely biblical regarding this king of Israel who cast down idolatrous "things", including having destroyed the bronze 'fiery' serpent on-a-pole which the Lord had (in times past) commanded Moses himself to have made?

5 He trusted in the Lord God of Israel, so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor who were before him. 6 For he held fast to the Lord; he did not depart from following Him, but kept His commandments, which the Lord had commanded Moses. 7 The Lord was with him; he prospered wherever he went.

There is fully biblical precedent for iconoclasts, provided they do hold fast to the Lord, and keep His commandments.

Let us not confuse here the [ahem] commandments of those whom would advise substitution, or even addition of "veneration of relics" as if the relics themselves held "powers", or were as holy objects in and of themselves --- with commandments of the Lord, Himself.

Isaiah 66:1

Thus says the Lord:
“Heaven is My throne, And earth is My footstool. Where is the house that you will build Me? And where is the place of My rest?

All of which results in your claim -- that veneration of relics to be "entirely biblical", to not be that, but to be more entirely all wet, wrong, in error, mistaken, shallow, superstitious, not "entirely biblical" at all ---- except for having engaged in a cherry-picking to support the premise, which for those who do understand Scripture more "entirely" (I just love going back to the word, lol) the theological underpinning of I've just scattered using that which is more entirely biblical.

Let's face facts here.

This "relics" business, is one which the RCC itself has long supported (and engaged in, as a $$business$$ even!) and which is custom (minus the $$$ for the most part) among some other ecclesiastical communities also. Yet even there, it can be established was custom which arose --- rather than being that which came directly from Apostolic teaching & tradition itself.

The cloths were used miraculously by God ---to provide healings, etc. There is no evidence the cloths themselves were "venerated".

To do that is to venerate the gift -- instead of the giver. Just as soon as that is engaged in, from the first micro-second, if the process is not brought to a halt, then it is all downhill, theologically speaking.

Or else you worship some other God than I do? If that be the case, then I think I'll restore/put back into use an old tagline.

Link to --->some of the possible cross-references to Isaiah 66:1

worth a look just for general purposes...though those passages (and the concepts which they hold) do buttress yet further the position which I was just taking..

>how many good works must you do? How do you know you’ve done enough?<

It is like asking a husband "how do you know when you loved your wife enough?"

These are works of love. You do them because you love God and God loves you, whenever you can.

That's a weak answer. The catholic maintains you have to do works to keep your salvation.

If that is the premise how many do you have to do? There must be a minimum required to keep salvation.

One cup of water given in His name? One act of kindness?

Is there a daily or weekly minimum?

Surely if the catholic is staking their eternity on works plus faith....they need to have a scorecard.

If not, how do you know you won't come up short at the end??

It's a terrible position to be in for the catholic....not having the assurance of salvation.

Your post 3307....now we have Elizabeth giving out alms????

It never stops with catholicism does it?

I could go on and on.

But you would be wrong. Or at times your caricature of the Church would be wrong. For example, the idea that the Pope can do "whatever he decrees" is silly.

only addressing Chrysostom and his view about baptism

I picked up the first passage in the first link of those you offered. It was indeed about baptism and not at all asserting anything about Faith Alone as a general doctrine. So that WAS sloppy work by your apologist. I also offered to drill down on any other quote you might have. I did not ignore anything and did not pick one passage over another.

They would AGREE with saints like Irenaeus who stated [...]

We do agree. The Holy Scripture is a firm basis for argument, especially with the Protestant heretics; there are things that the Holy Scripture does not say and the Holy Church does not teach. There is nothing in the passage from Irenaeus that deviates from the Catholic view on the scripture, and nothing that supports the ridiculous idea that the Bible is the sole rule of faith.

Saint Irenaeus, doctor of the Holy Catholic Church and our glorious martyr, pray for us.
Convert with the power of thy penetrating mind Protestant heretics
and bring them to repentance and back to the bosom of the Church
Open the Holy Scripture for us; make the Divine Writ plain for us.
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, in the company of all saints, amen.

I did not murder anyone and I did sin, but I did so due to my nature and not because St. Paul quoted the exaggerated poetry of King David to the Roman converts. If you want to take that passage literally, take the whole of it literally.

The Penitent St Jerome

Filippino Lippi

c. 1485
Szépmûvészeti Múzeum, Budapest

St. Jerome, doctor of the Holy Church, thee who gave us the Latin Bible, pray for us.

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, amen.

good stuff

When I receive a post I read it in full searching for a scriptural argument or for a question about the Christian faith. Everything else I tend to ignore.

i did not murder anyone and I did sin, but I did so due to my nature and not because St. Paul quoted the exaggerated poetry of King David to the Roman converts. If you want to take that passage literally, take the whole of it literally.

To be sure I understand....Paul is exaggerating the OT. A Pharisee of Pharisees who was advancing beyond his contemporaries and you say he's exaggerating the OT because it doesn't fit the distorted view the rcc has of Mary.

Amazing.

The catholic attempt to deny the Word never ceases to amaze.

And then you run off and ask Jerome to pray for you...even though we have no examples in the NT where we are told to pray to those who have departed this earth.

Why don't we ever see catholics asking Jesus for help?? It's either mary or someone other than Christ.

the sentence in your tag line ends with a preposition...that is a no-no.

that's kind-of funny.

I guess I could change it, just for you.

Sola Fide is a false doctrine and James makes that point. Of course James does not contradict other scriptures. People misunderstand other scriptures, just as the Apostle Peter said they do. For example, you posted a verse but neglected the precedent that Paul discussed, ie., that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law of Moses.

Sola fide IS a perfectly Biblical and Apostolic doctrine taught all throughout Scripture and repeatedly defended by the early leaders of Christianity. It's strange how you can presume a single passage in one book can cancel out or negate all the others from the rest of Scripture which clearly teaches over and over that we are NOT saved by the righteous deeds we do - whether works of the Mosaic law or our works of charity. May I remind you, Abraham was justified by faith alone 400 YEARS before there even was a Mosaic law.

You can continue to argue the false and accursed gospel the Roman Catholic church developed over time - and which was NOT the gospel once delivered unto the saints - and you can trust in your own merit, goodness, righteousness, works, deeds or whatever is the next hoop your religion deems in necessary to jump through for your salvation, but it will NOT make it true and will NOT convince those who have come to genuine and sincere faith in Jesus Christ and follow HIM.

JESUS is our righteousness. HE is the only sacrifice for our sins. HE is who will save us by faith in Him and we shall never perish, be cast out, be lost or plucked from His hands. I will trust in what HE says, in HIS authority instead of what foolish and sinful men devise out of their blackened hearts deceived by their own lusts for power, wealth and prestige. We are saved by grace through faith and not by our works. How many times does God need to repeat that?

When I receive a post I read it in full searching for a scriptural argument or for a question about the Christian faith. Everything else I tend to ignore.

Go ahead, claim whatever you so desire concerning your own self. Yet none of this discussion is about you, per se, or myself either, for that matter, but instead is about the truth -- of which I seek not one thing from yourself concerning, for I "pose" no "questions about the Christian faith" to you. So get off of that little high horse... that one is truly ridiculous.

You seek scriptural argument? Well ok then,

Deuteronomy 19:15

“One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.

which Christ Himself was referencing when, as is attributed in John 5:31 Jesus saying;

“If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true. ..."

Now previously, you had responded to the same comment of my own which another had responded "good stuff", with yourself having made remark as to the length of my own statement there. I found that amusing coming from one (such as yourself) who posts on these pages quite a few long and involved type of reply/comment/posting, what-have-you.

And this which you had complained about (as for length) contained a highlighting of your own double-mindedness towards Scripture, saying things were one way, then in the [very!] next sentence saying the direct opposite!

Further, that commentary was not exlusive to discussion of Scripture itself, but had also included elements of extra-biblical/historical "patristic" commentary which was being discussed by a priest among the Orthodox.

Yet somehow...that sort of thing is beyond your own seeming "rules" of what you yourself will consider, even as those very sort of things are also something of your own stock-in-trade, so to speak, of that which you do seemingly would have others here (on this forum) take with utmost seriousness.

Really? Well, then, once again sir, much as before I must say -- do that which you would require of others.

Later, when this very same bronze 'serpent on a pole' object was no longer being used in the original way, and was thus a relic from the past which persons "venerated" and burned incense unto; was destroyed for that reason, for having become a superstitious relic;

Excellent point! It's incredible to me how we "modern" people with all our inventions, discoveries and advances are STILL so much like our ancient forebears. It doesn't seem to matter what God commands, some people will continue to do whatever they want anyway. Superstitious and gullible people will always fall for the tricks of the devil and his goal will always be to draw us away from God, not towards Him.

I did not murder anyone and I did sin, but I did so due to my nature and not because St. Paul quoted the exaggerated poetry of King David to the Roman converts. If you want to take that passage literally, take the whole of it literally.

Well, THAT'S a relief! So, would you conclude that the Holy Spirit through Paul was including ALL mankind as under sin? When God says through the prophet in I Kings 8:46, for there is no one who does not sin, did He mean ALL or not? When God says through Moses in Genesis 8:21, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood, did He not mean all of us? When God says in Ecclesiastes 7:20, Indeed, there is no one on earth who is righteous, no one who does what is right and never sins., did He not mean everyone? I figure you already know about the many Scriptures that condemn all mankind as sinners in need of a Savior, so rather than brush it all off as exaggerated hyperbole, why not start to see our fallen nature as God sees it?

There is no exception for Mary in Scripture and I'm sure, if she was exempted from a sin nature, we would know about it from God's word. Why would He keep that a secret??? Are some people worse sinners than others? Oh, yeah, of course, but we are ALL sinners, we are ALL fallen, we are ALL at enmity with God, we are ALL capable of unthinkable evil given a set of circumstances. God knows that - He made us. So, please stop the nitpicking over words again. Why argue against what Scripture clearly says? Accept the truth for what it is. Without Christ, without the new birth, our hearts are desperately wicked - who can know it? That is what makes grace so awesome!

"...the false and accursed gospel the Roman Catholic church developed over time - and which was NOT the gospel once delivered unto the saints ..."

That is the problem, and often one of but degree of separation, being at times possibly close, then veering away from that touching upon "close".

All-in-all there is no plan of salvation there to be found other than the Roman Catholic ~~Church~~ ecclesiastical body being preached as the ways and means of the Gospel, becoming then the Gospel itself.

If that was the "good news" in hugh and series way - I do not want to hear the bad news.

What difference would there be in the new-es then, anyway?

It surely proved to be a hell on earth for many in the past, even though it was likely as not real cushy and comfortable (for those on top of the heap) for those long centuries (6 or so, at the least?) when simony and feudalism went together hand-in-glove...

The world has been there and done that. No more will that be allowed to occur (although the zealots among the muslims have their own competing version(s) which they are trying to put into effect).

That Roman Catholic way of centuries past "ways" has proven itself, beyond all argument to the contrary to have far too much negative effect wrapped up within it, to ever again be contemplated ---- until Christ Himself comes back to oversee the operation(s) more directly.

Until then, the RCC having in past centuries cast it's lot wholeheartedly into the effort to have things always "both ways", of this world and realm and of God's own too, simultaneously, far too often much as Esau long before, sold their birthright for bowls of porridge (earthly wealth and 'glory') and now...rather futilely seek repentance for having done that, with many tears...

Come back! We are your leader!

Lol.

Jacob, that usurper, has moved on, grown strong and no longer needs fear his hairy (and now near toothless) old brother.

the sentence in your tag line ends with a preposition...that is a no-no.

Your sentence didn't begin with a capital "T". Are you applying for the Grammar Nazi position that doesn't exist on FR?

He can be a grammar nazi if he wants to?

Is this a great country, or what?

He’d probably get as much respect as Henry did. ;o)

I think I'll switch it back to the way it was.

The directional element was important.

Up. He gets there before any 'pope' daddy...(if any of those are allowed to go "up", being as for more than a few of those it is rather doubtful...)

AF: Sola Fide is a false doctrine and James makes that point.

This is a recurring theme in these debates, and it is so unnecessary. Sola Fide is a theological term of art. It does not mean, nor has it ever meant, that salvation occurs in a vacuum, as if to insult God that He would do something incomplete. When He saves He saves to the uttermost. See Hebrews 7:25. The expression "Sola Fide" evolved during the Reformation as a way of making a statement about cause versus effect. Justification, as Paul uses the term, has a unified cause, and a multifaceted effect. Paul is answering the question, what, from God's point of view, causes sinners to be adjudicated acceptable to Him, forgiven, cleared of guilt. It is crystal clear in Paul this does NOT entail our own offered righteousness, either before or after our reconciliation to God:

Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Romans 4:1-5 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? (2) For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. (3) For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. (4) Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. (5) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

But then, as the RC caucus loves to point out, we have James with this:

James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

These are both using the same Greek term for justification, dikaioō, but they cannot mean both that justification is based on works and justification is not based on works. That would be a violation of the law of non-contradiction. It is axiomatic that Holy Spirit inspired text will never produce a real contradiction. Therefore, while I understand fully the force of James in showing that works accompany justifying faith, it passes understanding that the converse force of Paul's declarations, cited above, can be ignored by any party to this debate, as if it hadn't even been written, or was written to no purpose.

But if we let stand the false idea that dikaioo always references forensic (judicial) justification, justification from God's perspective, then Paul and James are necessarily in contradiction, and that presents problems to either canonicity or inspiration or both. That is an impossible condition, because the Holy Spirit would NOT inspire a contradiction. Therefore it is impossible, under the doctrine of inspiration, that they both refer to the same thing. In which case, using one to disprove the other is a fool's game. There is no winner. Inspiration loses which ever "side" wins. Therefore we MUST conclude there is a reasonable harmonization, and said harmonization will NOT require us to ignore one or the other passage, but instead will edify us best when we understand how both truths work together to glorify God.

In that direction, let us first demonstrate that it is possible to use dikaioo in a manner compatible with James' use but clearly unlike Paul's, simply by being careful to identify the justifier and the audience to whom the justification is being made. Consider the following:

Luke 7:29 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.

In this passage, men are justifying God, not the other way around. Could we then use this as a proof text that it's OK for men to judge God? God forbid! It means no such thing! God is not in this case having a judicial sentence passed over Him by mere mortals. Perish the thought! What IS happening is that sinful men at the Baptism of John are recognizing that God was right all along, which is the very reason they are repenting and being baptized. In other words, here dikaioo is being used here to describe a recognition, by men, of an existing condition in God.

There is no semantic or contextual reason this sense of dikaioo could not be used in James. In Paul the audience is God, the setting is the court of God's justice, and the object of justification is our acquittal before God, being declared innocent of all our crimes. In James, the audience consists of whoever it is to whom we make public claims of having faith, which is typically our fellow travelers in this mortal life, people. By this distinction we can say that Paul is talking about how we are justified in God's view by faith, without works, and in James we are justified in our claim to faith if we have works, because works satisfy the "show me" principle in James 2:18. What are we showing by our works? Our faith. Therefore works are being used as evidence that our faith is real and not just talk. In other words, they are an effect, not a cause, of Pauline justification.

Note that James does not say, as Paul does, that this justification is in any sense "before God." Rather, recall how he says we show our faith by our works. But to whom do we show this? Who is the audience? God knows the truth of our faith claim better than we do. But men do not know, unless they see evidence of true faith in how we live, how we love one another, as Jesus said would be the very best evidence that we belong to Him. Loving God with everything we've got, and loving each other as we love ourselves, is the supreme "good deed." And James is very much concerned with how we fulfill the royal law of love amongst each other, so it makes sense in the very practical nature of his teaching he would focus on how a living faith would be the cause of all these good works he admonishes us to do. Whereas in Paul, and especially in Romans, he is presenting a primer in Christian systematic theology, in which faith is both the cause of our justification before God, as well as the motivation to serve God in the freedom of a changed heart.

So between the two of them, there is no contradiction, but instead a beautiful symmetry. Faith has its effects. It is the cause of our justification before God, and it produces both a forensic righteousness, i.e., the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, as well as a manifest change in our nature, to love good rather than evil, and so give evidence of our faith before men. But faith itself is not something we can manufacture on our own, but is itself a gift of God, and so is nothing we can take credit for, either in terms of our justification, or our good works. Thus grace is preserved, righteousness is shed abroad, both in Heaven and on earth, and all the glory goes to God.

And that's what the Reformers mean, and have always meant, when talking about "Sola Fide." The Sola is with respect to cause, not effect. Yes, the term is absent from Scripture in a formal sense, just as the Trinity is absent from the text. But the idea that only faith can produce our justification before God is soundly grounded in the whole body of New Testament teaching. What kind of faith does that? Talk-is-cheap faith, that produces no changed heart to love and obey God? No, that kind of faith is NOT the referent of Sola Fide, but only Abraham-like faith, faith willing to act, to obey God in any way in which He calls us, because of our complete love and trust of Him.

Peace,

SR