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.

[ealgeone]

When Catholics tell you all that we don't treat Mary with the same reverence we do God than the matter is settled.

Fly, oh Adam, oh Eve, and ye their children, who have offended God ; fly and take refuge in the bosom of this good mother. Do you not know that she is the only city of refuge, and the only hope of sinners ?| As St. Augustine has called her, The only hope of sinners :

Hence St. Ephrem says: Thou art the only advocate of sinners, and of those who are deprived of every help; and he thus salutes her: Hail! refuge and retreat of sinners, to whom alone they can flee with confidence.!

If St. Antoninus relates that a sinner finding himself in disgrace before God, imagined himself standing before the tribunal of Jesus Christ : the devil was accusing him and Mary defending him. The enemy presented against this poor criminal the catalogue of his offences, which, placed in the balance of divine justice far outweighed his good works ; but what then did his great advocate do ? She extended her kind hand and placed it in the other scale; it descended in favor of her suppliant, and thus it was given him to understand, that she would obtain his pardon if he would change his life; and, indeed, after that vision he was converted and changed his life.

http://archive.org/stream/thegloriesofmary00liguuoft/thegloriesofmary00liguuoft_djvu.txt

These selections from the "Glories of Mary" make it clear that Mary is exclusively the only advocate of sinners. In fact, based on the last example Mary is now actively participating in forgiving the sins of people with just the touch of her hand. Disregard that Christ died and shed His blood for our sins.

Contrast with the Bible.

1 John 2:1

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;

Colossians 2:8-14

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. 9For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 10and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; 11and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Catholicism says Mary is the only advocate sinners have.....the only refuge sinners have...she participates in forgiveness of sins.

The Word of God says Jesus Christ is the Advocate we have before the Father.

The Word of God says Jesus is the only One Who forgives our sins. No one else. None. Nada. Zilch.

So which is it? It is an either or. It cannot be both.

This is why Christianity rejects catholicism's teachings on Mary and a bunch of other man-made "traditions."

I pray catholics come out of the darkness of deception and into the light of Jesus Christ Who is our Advocate before the Father.

[ealgeone]

verga: >>Please prove that Christ's words "This is My body" were not literal<<

A catholic priest is on record of saying the following:

The entire Gospel of John uses a system of symbols. Each action of Jesus--feeding the multitude, turning water into wine, being sacrificed in the manner of the Passover Lamb, giving Mary to John as his mother--is used by John as a sign of a greater or spiritual reality.

[CynicalBear]

ROFL!! Not even close.

[CynicalBear]

>>Catholicism says Mary is the only advocate sinners have.....the only refuge sinners have...she participates in forgiveness of sins.<<

Yet they will deny giving Mary attributes and abilities that belong only to God. It defies credulity.

[caww]

Rather like catholics assuming one is Protestant simly because they are not catholic.

The point is very clear regardless...and as stated 'interesting' ...."The woman was arrayed in 'purple and scarlet' colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a 'golden cup' in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication, "....Rev. 17:4..... Here's a few more...

[caww]

..." properly, to kiss the ground when prostrating before a superior; to worship, ready "to fall down/prostrate oneself to adore on one's knees" ... to "do obeisance" .... suggests the willingness to make all necessary physical gestures of obeisance.".....

.... like this...

[ealgeone]

and the reply from catholics is.....crickets.

[caww]

....”By entrusting ourselves to her (Mary) prayer, we abandon ourselves to the will of God together with her.”....

Jesus clearly said...

“No one comes to the Father except through me.”.....John 14:6

“Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?....Luke 6:46

[ealgeone]

in the upper right of your picture is Big Mary and Little Jesus.

[MamaB]

They say they do not do that but, my word, it is so evident in things they do and say. When you can find sites which only deal with prayers to Mary and others which deal with prayers to dead people, it is very evident to people who have not been “brainwashed.”. Why do they do it? Even on that catholic channel, I have come across prayers to her and so called saints. Surely they are smart enough to read the Bible to find out what It says instead of listening to men tell them what to think and believe. You know I have noticed something on different shows? People have crosses and objects of Mary in their homes but I have seen very few Bibles. Why is that? I find it very odd.

[caww]

That’s generally the case in the catholic religion...Jesus has representation but usually as a baby or still on the cross as an adult.....

He is no longer an infant.....Jesus is ALIVE...the cross is empty so too the grave.....We serve a risen Christ.

catholicism simply keeps Jesus on the cross....evidenced also in their mass ritual.

[FourtySeven]

Well, since you asked...

“Fly, oh Adam, oh Eve, and ye their children, who have offended God ; fly and take refuge in the bosom of this good mother. Do you not know that she is the only city of refuge, and the only hope of sinners ? St. Augustine”

This (and other quotes like it) is written in the same sense as Col 1:24.

Does anyone seriously suggest St Paul believes something was “lacking” in the suffering sacrifice of Christ? Of course not.

So what’s the meaning here? St Paul is saying that what is “lacking” is nothing on Christ’s part but everyone’s part who does not cooperate with the grace of God, by participating in the same suffering by uniting ones suffering to that of Christ’s on the Cross.

So we see here a deeper meaning than the “plain” reading of the Scripture. Similarly with the Marian quotes as above. Does anyone really believe the Catholic Church is so brazen in her “worship” of Mary, that the words as written are meant to be taken literally and devoid of all context?

I submit only those with an agenda or axe to grind would jump to that conclusion.

Quotes as above (from St Augustine no less, the alleged Saint of Proto-Protestantism...but I digress) are meant to be understood in the greater context of the Catholic understanding of salvation to whit: synergism as opposed to monergism. That is, that each person, by his cooperation with God, participates in his own salvation.

With this understanding the quotes as above become more clear: they aren’t saying Mary brings about salvation by her own power or that she is some kind of goddess equal to God. They are saying that by her unique role in salvation history, and her Fiat, she did indeed bring salvation to the world through her Son Jesus Christ. Put another way, without her Fiat, the plan of salvation as God intended (the Incarnation of His Son) never would have taken place. So we do indeed owe much to Mary, and thus in this sense it can be said what is said in the quote above (as others).

It’s Mary’s “yes” that is thanked and honored in quotes as above. Such quotes do not equate her with God in any way, just like Col 1:24 doesn’t actually say there was anything “lacking” in Christ’s suffering.

It takes a mind unfettered by agendas and presuppositions to see this point.

I’m going to bet though both of you will have something to say to “prove” what I’m saying “wrong”. So go ahead. Get that precious last word in; it’ll be to your detriment though if you don’t even take a few minutes to objectively consider what I’ve said.

Not that that’s ever stopped a critic of Catholicism around here.

[GBA]

Thanks for the information in your post.

What are your thoughts about the Protevangelium of James?

I just learned of it last Sunday on the History Channel's Banned from The Bible program. Fascinating info about Mary's life!

She's obviously not of the Holy Trinity, and no one I know is claiming she is or even close, but she's also not your average human either, apparently. Not in life or in "death".

[PeterPrinciple]

Surely they are smart enough to read the Bible to find out what It says instead of listening to men tell them what to think and believe.

---

A few thoughts:

1) Not a matter of smartness, not sure what it is. The nature of man is to take the easy path and let others do the thinking for them. Very evident if we look around. I succumb to it at times also but it seem like there is always more to the story if I bother to look. The truth is expensive in time and effort, lies are cheap and easy. Protestants are subject to this also.

2) Very few are reading the Bible these days, whether protestant or Roman Catholic. I practice the ministry of dumb questions lately and ask people what they have read in the Bible this past week. Most run away from the question but I have found some warriors in the process. When I ask the question, I better be able to answer too.....

3) There is a disconnect of doctrine and action in the Catholic church but it is also true with protestants. The methodist votes down the homo agenda every year but does not discipline those who violate doctrine. So what is true, what they say, or what they do? I think there is a parable about that.

4) Every church has mission creep. To me it is very evident in the Roman Catholic church, with the worship of mary and saints, the emphasis on tradition, indulgences, etc. If you research those the original ideas are good but just like the Jews, they kept adding rules. Are protestants guilty of the same thing? Yes we have mission creep also.

The first generation churches in Revelations Chapter 1 and 2 were off target in big ways. After 2,000 years would not we be off course too and need correction? (Again both RC and protestant)

Jesus tells us the solution but I will not state it here, go to the original source.

[caww]

..."This is a guy who kisses soccer jerseys"...."If kisses meant "adoration," we'd have to keep away from our spouses and kids"........

Of course kisses toward our children are "adoring"... we should adore the children God gives us.........they are real flesh and bone not some icon or idol dressed up to look like something it's not....

These photo's show the Pope being affectionate with a doll in a ritualistic service...and this in full view of the audiance...with other priests attending. So this is hardly a pope just kissing a soccer jersey.....this was indeed adoration of a dresseed up idol...performed in a church worship service....hardly kissing a soccer jersey as you mentioned

[Springfield Reformer]

verga: >>Please prove that Christ's words "This is My body" were not literal<<

Invalid form of argument. Verga is requesting that someone else take the burden of proof which belong squarely with the underlying positive assertion that "This is my body" is literal.  In layman's terms, never get suckered into trying to prove a negative, when it's the positive assertion that's really in dispute.  It's not your job to prove the negative.  It's his job to prove the positive.  It's like, "Prove there are no people from Planet X living among us."  How would one do that?  There are many cases where proving the negative is a patent impossibility, but which has absolutely no bearing on the truthfulness of the positive assertion. In short, it is an obfuscation tactic, and very effective if you don't keep track of where and how the burden got moved from its rightful place.

Bottom line, if someone asserts "This is my body" translates to the Aristotelian/Aquinian formulation of transubstantiation, it is their problem to prove that positive assertion is exactly what the speaker meant.

This is especially obligatory here, because the positive assertion that "this is my body" should be understood as Aristotelian realism or corporeality is a case of special pleading, as in almost all other examples of this sort of usage, a simple verb of being joining two dissimilar domains (loaf = body) would trigger the metaphor reflex.  Thus, for the claim to be established as true, the one offering it must prove the positive form of the assertion, that "This is my body" = Aristotelian realism as framed by Aquinas and Trent.  Otherwise, the ordinary reader is well within his/her rights to understand this expression as an ordinary direct metaphor describing a one time, extraordinary act of divine love and sacrifice, which act we are specifically told to remember whenever we encounter the literal loaf and wine of the literal paschal meal.

Peace,

SR

[MamaB]

Peter, what is mission creep? I have never heard of it. Thanks.

[MamaB]

As far back as I can remember, I took a Bible to church. We read along with the minister. I get 2 devotions every day. One is from the Psalms which I really enjoy. It is my favorite book. I can remember in the 5th grade in 54/55, we memorized verses and even chapters and after we recited them in class, we got a Bible. Students can not do that today. We even started each day with a devotion and prayer. Every 6 weeks from grades 6-12, we met in the auditorium for speeches, music, etc. our speaker was usually the Church of Christ minister. He had a connection with students that many do not have. Students today miss so much.

[ealgeone]

Well, you have a career as Baghdad Bob or White House Press Secretary.

So we see here a deeper meaning than the “plain” reading of the Scripture. Similarly with the Marian quotes as above. Does anyone really believe the Catholic Church is so brazen in her “worship” of Mary, that the words as written are meant to be taken literally and devoid of all context?

So we see here a deeper meaning than the “plain” reading of the Scripture. Similarly with the Marian quotes as above. Does anyone really believe the Catholic Church is so brazen in her “worship” of Mary, that the words as written are meant to be taken literally and devoid of all context?

I'm so dizzy from the spin.

If they weren't to be taken at face value......why have the "marian" quotes on these issues? What would move the writers to pen these quotes. We don't see these kind of writings

These writings aren't even close to Col 1:24 or any others. They contradict Scripture in every sense.

Col 1:24

Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions