Posted on 12/14/2014 11:57:21 AM PST by 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.
The point regards the nature of relics.
Regarding Mary, I'm sure you would agree that she was Jesus' mother. So we can begin with some common ground.
In the Bible we see that Jesus is the King of the eternal, redeemed Davidic Kingdom, or "the Kingdom of God."
Revelation 3:7(The "key of David" was an over-sized key which the Davidic king would bestow on his vice-regent in the king's absence, representing the vice-regent's authority to "open and shut." See Isaiah 22)These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.
In the Old Testament, we see that the "Gebirah," "Queen Mother," or mother of the Davidic king held an exalted office, often sitting on a throne at the right hand of the king.
1 Kings 2:19As the Mother of Jesus, Mary is the "Queen Mother" of the eternal, redeemed, Davidic kingdom. She is the "Queen of Heaven," and as such is due veneration.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.
Rev. 12A 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. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born. She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.”
You're correct, at least during her earthly life. But things in Heaven are different from things on earth. "Eye has not seen and ear has not heard..." Mary is the "Queen of Heaven" referred to in Revelation. God only knows what graces she receives in Heaven.
+++
But here is an important point regarding the principle of "sola scriptura" which you assume as valid.
If this principle isn't contained in the Bible, is it a valid principle?
This principle can't be contained in the Bible, because the Bible wasn't compiled or canonized until centuries after the last book of the Bible was written. Therefore, no passage in Scripture could possibly be referring to the Bible as a whole, either the Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox versions.
Luther's doctrine of "the Bible alone as the sole or ultimate rule of faith" is self-refuting.
Man I tell you what....catholics sure can spin things to suit their narrative.
In fact, the Bible doesn't say how the Israelites treated Elisha's bones. So how do you know how Elisha's bones should have been treated? Should Elisha's bones have been respected or despised as "rotten"? How do you know how the relics of saints should be treated if the Bible is silent?
And where is your doctrine of "the Bible ALONE as the SOLE rule of faith" in the Bible?
Hint: it can't be in the Bible, since the Bible wasn't canonized until centuries after the last book of the Bible was written. So no passage in Scripture can possibly refer to the Bible as a whole.
The doctrine was an invention of Luther.
I think that out of all denominations that claim the name of Christ, the Roman denomination has the most beautiful costumes and pageantry. The fish head hats complete the look.
I realize much of it is borrowed from pagan religions, but the execution in the Roman denomination is amazing.
That’s odd. Based on the passage I assumed his bones were in his tomb.
“as i have often shown before by God’s grace,”
ditto.
When you refuse to give the Word of God its proper authority over the traditions of man, you become tone deaf to truth. Still, God opens hearts, as He did with Paul and ourselves.
Just to illustrate the difference: until the 20th century, the Anglican and Methodist marriage ceremony contained the words,
"With this Ring I thee wed, with my body I thee worship, and with all my worldly goods I thee endow: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen."
Now obviously, the spouses are not saying, in the presence of the Trinity, that they will now undertake idolatrous adoration of their marriage partner. "Worship" was a word that meant "highly honor."
The same was found in the Jewish marriage ceremony, which used the phrase, "Be unto me a wife, and I according to the word of God, will worship, honour and maintain thee," which is obviously not idolatry, but a pledge of high honor.
Similarly, people formerly closed their letters to employers or superior officers with the words, "Your worshipful servant," when they meant, basically, "At your service" --- they did not mean divine adoration --- and for that matter, Protestant clergy were commonly called "divines," which did not mean they were demigods.
So your point is simply mistaken here, since you did not recognize the applicable usage of the time and context.
Moreover, this statement of yours,
"Perhaps that is why Mary is the central figure in Catholicism"
is plainly and simply untrue. All Catholics would reject this as false, including of course Mary herself.
It may interest you to know that the name of Mary is not mentioned even once in the basic, central act of adoration, namely, the Mass as celebrated daily, everywhere, in every country, in the Catholic Church. These is one exception: on the occasions when the "Confiteor" prayer is used, Mary is at the head of the list of believers (including the people in the pews around us) we are asking for intercessory prayer, to wit:
"Therefore I ask Blessed Mary ever Virgin, all the angels and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God."You can easily see the difference between asking a fellow believer for intercession, and the following,which is an act of true adoration, properly so called:
Glory to God in the highest,
and, peace to his people on earth.
Lord God, heavenly King,
almighty God and Father,
we worship you, we give you thanks,
we praise you for your glory.
Lord Jesus Christ, only Son of the Father,
Lord God, Lamb of God,
you take away the sin of the world:
have mercy on us;
you are seated at the right hand of the Father:
receive our prayer.
For you alone are the Holy One,
you alone are the Lord,
you alone are the Most High,
Jesus Christ,
with the Holy Spirit,
in the glory of God the Father.
Amen.
Note the difference: this is the lexicon of adoration: the bolded words are the type of thing that could never be addressed to any creature. Only God is offered the ultimate act of sacrifice, which is the sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who offers Himself to His Father as the only acceptable, pure and perfect sacrifice, as was prophesied by Malachi 1:11:
"For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts."Malachi’s prediction (1:10–11) could be fulfilled only by the sacrifice of Christ, Who is the only pure and perfect, spotless and acceptable offering. And among the Gentiles from east to west? This clearly means that this would be a sacrifice made present everywhere amongst the non-Jewish, i.e. Gentile nations. The prediction is that instead of the Jewish animal sacrifices, the Lord would instead have "a pure offering" made to him by the Gentiles in every place: a prophecy of the Eucharist. The Didache, the earliest Church teaching manual we have,before 100 AD, applies the term thusia, or sacrifice, to the Eucharist. This can be offered to God alone.
So you can certainly apply other criticisms to Catholic teaching, go ahead! But for the sake of accuracy --- and therefore more credible, exact and telling criticism --- do not make the blunder of saying we adore Mary. And do not make the blunder of saying Blessed Mary is the most central figure in Catholicism. She is a handmaid, and God has done great things for her. Blessed Mary knew that and so do we.
OK, carry on! :o)
You're correct, at least during her earthly life. But things in Heaven are different from things on earth. "Eye has not seen and ear has not heard..." Mary is the "Queen of Heaven" referred to in Revelation. God only knows what graces she receives in Heaven.
Nor do we have any such "record" of any of what catholics claim for Mary in Heaven.
By your own admission catholics do not know what graces Mary may or may not have received....yet catholics charge right ahead and assume what these are.
When John was caught up to Heaven and saw the throne of God he did not see Mary anywhere near the throne. Nor does he record seeing Mary period. His primary purpose was to reveal what was to come. That does not involve Mary.
Like a good catholic you've taken a verse out of context to fit a need.
Here is 1 Corinthians 2: 6-13 in context.
6Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; 7but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; 8the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; 9but just as it is written, “THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM.” 10For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. 11For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
However it once more evidences how Romes teachings borrow from old testamnet events to justify thier twisted worship of mary...which is NOT the Mary of the Bible....rather a dressed and made-up icon for the masses to worship...as they will and do.
In reality:
.."And it was told him (Jesus) by certain which said,..." Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee.... And he answered and said unto them,... My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.” ......(Luke 8:19-21)
When Jesus was told about this, he told them that his mother and brethren were those who were inside the room listening to him preach the word of God. Why did Jesus make such a statement? He did this because he was showing the people the difference between the natural family and the spiritual family. Yes, Mary was outside. Yes, she was the natural mother of Jesus, but Jesus was showing the people that the spiritual family is what really counts. Jesus showed no partiality even when it came right down to his natural family on this earth.
Jesus did NOT exalt his own mother above anyone else and we should follow His example also.
There is absolutely no hope outside of the person of Jesus Christ. Eternal life is in the Son and Mary has absolutely nothing to do with the salvation of any soul.
“Funny, don’t recall any mention of these “montrances” in the early church. “
Nor many doctrines of Rome.
” But here is an important point regarding the principle of “sola scriptura” which you assume as valid.
If this principle isn’t contained in the Bible, is it a valid principle?”
...........
You have had this explained to you on multiple threads. It is a logical fallacy to ask this question. It is foolish to not recognize what the Word of God claims for itself. Hundreds of verses. Many, many have been posted to you.
What isn’t there is a Catholic litany:
holy water,
worshiping relics
Mariolatry
Salvation by works
and so, so much more.
How do you treat the remains of your relatives? Do you regard their remains as rotten? Or do you treat their remains reverently?
I'm sure it's the latter. Sometimes people are buried underground in expensive caskets. Sometimes the caskets are kept above ground in mausoleums. Sometimes the remains are cremated and kept in an urn in a home. A loved one might kiss a casket at the burial, kiss a headstone or kiss a cremation urn. All of these are ways of expressing love in a reverent manner.
The remains of saints aren't due any less respect.
....”How do you know how the relics of saints should be treated if the Bible is silent?”....
It’s not...even the Jewish scriptures were in play long before catholics detetermined what they wanted them to say.
As for burial:
The Scriptures’ first reference to burial is in Genesis 23:3-4, after the death of Abraham’s wife, Sarah, when Abraham says, “Give me possession of a burying place . . . that I may bury my dead.”
Burials were usually completed quickly after death, even on the same day of the deceased’s passing. The story of Ananias and his wife Sapphira in the book of Acts illustrates the immediacy of burying the deceased after their death. In this example, both Ananias and Sapphira “breathe [their] last” and are immediately carried out and buried. Burial was sometimes delayed because of the Sabbath.
After death, the body was laid out, either on the ground or over sand and salt. The eyes and mouth were securely closed and the body was washed. The hair and nails were trimmed, and then the deceased was anointed with oils and ointment. Finally, the body was dressed. Sometimes the body was wrapped in linen with spices enclosed, while other times the body was dressed in fine clothes. Soldiers were usually buried in full uniform.
The ideal of a decent burial was important in most ancient cultures, as the idea of being left unburied and vulnerable to animals and birds of prey was shameful. It was especially desirable to be buried in one’s native land and, if possible, with one’s ancestors.
In Biblical times, tombs were often caves or hollowed-out hovels in the earth that were meant to house eight bodies or more. The entrance to a tomb was usually sealed with a door or large stone. Many times, where a body was buried depended greatly on who the deceased’s family was. For example, at the time of his wife’s death, Abraham purchased the cave of Machpelah at Hebron to be her burial site. When Abraham died, he was buried in the same tomb. Later, Isaac, Abraham’s son, was also buried there, and Jacob, Isaac’s son, was laid to rest there. There are references in Scripture to individuals who were buried alone, but this was often due to the fact that they died suddenly and in a place that was far away from their ancestral tomb. Bodies that were not placed in tombs were buried in shallow graves that were covered with heaps of rocks, which marked the grave and “prevented the body from being disturbed.”
http://people.opposingviews.com/old-testament-burial-customs-3257.html
You could always boil them and make soup.
Once buried we leave them buried, unlike the catholic grave robbers who dig up their's to make relics and icons from them, and or adorn church walls with their bones and skulls....which is everything but reverent or respectful of the deceased
Nor do we raid their graves to make corpse idols to be worshipped as catholics do
Fixed it for you
Admitting that such has taken place (and it not be the boogieman of "Modernism") does appear to me to be impossible for RCC Magesteriium to forthrightly come to grips with, though there are those Catholics who would confess to about as much, rather loosely, and that the correction was aimed at 16th century corruptions, etc., which is much the truth of things, overall.
Despite the significant differences in comparison to other ekklesia both East and West of the Church of Rome, Rome has rhetorically and even theologically painted itself into a corner --- for never being able to admit to the slightest of errors. When any of those when found (often only after heavy pressure from outside forces the confession) then it's all just blamed on individuals, or is "not ex-cathedra(!) or any of a few other well-worn methodologies there are of avoiding the very idea that the Roman Catholic Church could have ever been mistaken about anything...
Whether are not that list you brought is common "Catholic teaching" or not would be difficult to affirm going by what is usually talked about around here by Roman Catholics themselves. Not that long ago I had asked more than a few Roman Catholics here for a list of things which *must be* believed and they sent to the CCC which is how many pages? Hundreds which hold "that which must be believed" isn't it?
Which considerations towards is part of what lead me to say the list could have been cribbed from others, from Christians outside of the RCC, then given a going-over to make it better conform to outlooks and opinions which are more peculiar to RCC sensibilities in order that it CAN BE passed off as "this is what the RCC teaches" and yet not sound foreign to evangelical ears.
Also, the list is lacking the things which Roman Catholics on these pages seem to quite often stress are foremost. Perhaps so-called "Catholics' are generally as ignorant of their own Church's teachings as Catholics claim the critics of that same are?
It all depends on where one looks...and what subjective identifications are made as to what the RCC teaches is necessary for salvation (and what can be set aside as just "advice") for there has been so much written and accumulated over the centuries -- a person could pick either 'side' of a wide range of issues and be able to argue that the RC church "teaches" that, and sometimes things running alongside, from a quite different approach or angle.
There are still differences between RCC and "Protestants" in general, including how you placed "works" as a means of salvation, when just a little bit earlier in the day you claimed there was no such thing preached by the RCC as necessary for salvation...though in that context it was worded as "keeping" salvation -- which you vehemently denied was the case.
There is more that varies significantly with Protestant Evangelical teachings even as some of the same words are used...
Often it is an order-of-operations sort of thing. And then there is (within your list) the confusing and mixing-up of greater sanctification with what is more simply "justification" itself -- which justification itself is enough for salvation (the very body He extends saying "take, eat, my body broken for you") according to the promises of Christ, and the teachings of Paul concerning those, and how all of these things can fit.
Rome has added much to that list of yours which goes far beyond those things listed by qualifying/limiting/restricting/ even prohibiting anyone to grasp them --- if those persons are outside of their own clutches.
Exceptions to this, such as yourself, and some others perhaps, are not enough to make all the rest of the accumulated additions of that which is part-and-parcel of Romanism not be still very much extant as for what the Church of Rome teaches is "necessary for salvation".
Certainly you know this? That's what drives me right up the wall -- about how you portray things to be...
Absent your list was any preaching that the RCC itself be necessary for salvation. If that is not a teaching of the church, then you would have your work cut out for you to set the [Roman] Catholics around here straight, for they all seem to "preach" some form of that --- cramming that in every which-a-way possible.
Amen.
Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.