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 Gospel of James, also known as the Infancy Gospel of James or the Protevangelium of James, is an apocryphal Gospel probably written about AD 145, which expands backward in time the infancy stories contained in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and presents a narrative concerning the birth and upbringing of Mary herself. It is the oldest source to assert the virginity of Mary not only prior to but during (and after) the birth of Jesus.[1] The ancient manuscripts that preserve the book have different titles, including “The Birth of Mary”, “The Story of the Birth of Saint Mary, Mother of God,” and “The Birth of Mary; The Revelation of James.”[2]”
From Wikipedia. I posted the quote in case it changes as can happen on Wikipedia. But that quote above seems accurate.
It’s not Scripture. However that along with other “apocryphal” works can and do show the historicity of many Marian devotions and traditions (some of which later came to be recognized as Tradition).
Those are my thoughts on it, and this: we Catholics are to follow Church teaching on these and all dogmatic matters and thus, as such, while the Protoevangelum of James contains some truths it’s not to be taken as entirely the inerrant Word of God (as Scripture is). So it may contain some errors.
I have seen those shows on the History channel at least advertised. I never watched them because the title “Banned from the Bible” is too provocative for my taste. It’s almost implying some type of gnostic conspiracy to “supres the truth” about Christianity. The fact of the matter is the so called “apocryphal” works were never “banned” from the Bible (as if they were in the canon originally). They weren’t in the canon originally; they were never in the canon. But that’s just a pet peeve of mine.
Not even close. The insinuation is preposterous. Paul was saying that his suffering so far was lacking the suffering that Christ had suffered. NO WHERE in that passage can it even be inferred that Paul was talking about the suffering of Christ lacking anything.
>>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.<<
There is one of those Catholic injections again. "Cooperating with the grace of God"? The attempts by the Catholic Church to inject some sort of effort on man's part to deserve or appropriate salvation is pervasive and totally in error.
>>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?<<
No "context" has changed the meaning of the words of the Catholic Church or it's followers. The clear intent of the words is obvious. They place Mary ahead of Christ or the Holy Spirit. The very words you use which I quote below serve as evidence.
>>Put another way, without her Fiat, the plan of salvation as God intended (the Incarnation of His Son) never would have taken place.<<
What utter contempt for the ability of God.
>>It’s Mary’s “yes” that is thanked and honored in quotes as above.<<
Nonsense. It's Mary that Catholics elevate to demi goddess not just her words. The Catholic Church consistently elevates man above what scripture warrants.
It's bogus. It's where the worship of Mary began. It was written by someone claimnig to be the brother of Christ, James. It has been proven not to have been written by the brother of Christ.
I just learned of it last Sunday on the History Channel's Banned from The Bible program. Fascinating info about Mary's life!
See above.
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".
Based on what??
You must not have read much catholic writing on Mary!
From the Religion Moderator's profile page:
Whereas posters may argue vigorously for and against beliefs on “open” Religion Forum threads it is never tolerable to use ad hominems in religious debate because they invariably lead to flame wars when the subject is one’s deeply held religious beliefs.Can't be used at all.
Changing the meaning is so...typical.
NOT a fluke, but at least there is consistency with your manner of debate.
LOL, continuing the condescending little digs huh?
I was not discussing honor and adoration.
I was just stating facts, much of them gleaned from Catholicism.
LOL!
Syncro, he’s just having a little fun at your expense:
homonyms: Homonyms (also called homophones) are words that sound like one another but have different meanings.
And indeed there is no rule against words that sound alike, but they can lead to a smile or two if taken in stride. :)
Peace,
SR
I have to say it took well over 3,000 postings to get at transubstantiation.
What patience!
However, I have to say it is probably good to stick to just one thread to air out the various recurring arguments. It actually makes looking for other articles of interest easier.
I did notice at another Christian forum site they do just that. They have a tab for recurring arguments called “The Forum.” So one basically has to voluntarily jump in the ‘ring’.
Yes, I thought the alternative spelling would have the desired effect...and it did.
there is also no mention of an organ,gas furnace, ciborium, stained glass windows, steeples, ....lots of things aren't mentioned....but there was an actual description of the sacraments such as the Eucharist (THIS IS MY BODY) and you concern yourself with a decorative piece of gold ornamentation....how very odd where your emphasis is...
yeah and those things are worshipped/venerated or whatever word you use for this either.
” Funny, don’t recall any mention of these “montrances” in the early church. “
“there is also no mention of an organ,gas furnace, ciborium, stained glass windows, steeples, ....lots of things aren’t mentioned....but there was an actual description of the sacraments such as the Eucharist (THIS IS MY BODY) and you concern yourself with a decorative piece of gold ornamentation....how very odd where your emphasis is... “
...............
Idolatry is always sinful in a group that claims the name of Christ.
Syncretism is always sinful in a group that claims the name of Christ.
Paganism in all forms is always sinful in a group that claims the name of Christ.
Ritual substituted for heart and obedience is always wrong in a group that claims the name of Christ.
Adding to Scripture is always wrong in a group that claims the name of Christ.
Substituting tradition for inspired Scripture is always wrong in a group that claims the name of Christ.
Obscuring the glorious Gospel of Grace is always wrong in a group that claims the name of Christ.
The first car was mentioned in Genesis.
The next one in the NT.
Well he is both a prot and a demoncrat. For those two reasons I pretty much suspect everything he says is false.
Personally, Mary has become far more interesting to me than simply as someone we think of only at Christmas, as used to be the case with me.
For example, if that woman was healed thanks to her belief in Him and that simply by touching Jesus' clothes she would be healed, well...what of the woman who carried not yet baby Jesus and gave birth to Him, raised and cared for Him, etc.?
In trying to get my head around "all of that", there's no way I see Mary as a standard issue human, either in life or "death".
Instead, I think what the Catholics (and perhaps the Orthodox?) believe is likely much closer to the truth than the Protestant take on her.
As such, I think I'll keep my mind open in my seeking answers, so as not to err in ignorance, nor be condemned my own mouth speaking foolishly, such as from not pondering the mystery more fully. There's no fooling God.
To me and my thinking, any reverence given to Mary is also given to the Holy Trinity at the same time, since she received all from God and is merely reflecting His Light and not an actual source. He is the source and all Glory goes to Him.
You rant and all I see is blah blah blah and a bunch of scripture posted out of context.
And.....
rather than running off with inane nonsense, why not attend a Catholic Mass or a change. There you would discover that the entire Mass is appealing to the lord for forgiveness, asking for His mercy, extolling His relationship with mankind, reminding ourselves that salvation is a gift from God through Christ, and participating in the extraordinary gift of the Holy Eucharist....one of the seven Sacraments that He instituted as gifts to mankind.
Some context around your comment would be helpful. You might ref the post # for discussion purposes.
I try not to tell them too often that I am praying for them, it gets them all jacked up. Some have even been known to foam at the mouth.
The thing I try to keep in mind is that protestantism is a vast intellectual wasteland.
And.....
think about it....you'll get it. remember, this is from a catholic priest.
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.