Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

Well, OK. So, Redleghunter, instead of going by some description of semi-pelagian heresy, here is the Catholic teaching thanks to Boatbums. The point remains, that grace is not something man can produce. Obviously he can work with the grace or against it. For example, the entire Protestant project is to resist the grace and kill the faith in people.

YOU, annalex, were the one who claimed "That is clearly a heresy. Man cannot cooperate with grace". I showed you in your own Catechism that Catholic teaching IS that man cooperates with grace. Before we go any further, would you like to issue a retraction or admit you were incorrect?

Yes.

Do you really believe that? The Holy Spirit draws people. Saints have nothing to do with it.

Wait one minute. This fly right in the face of...

Superfly

...trying to get over, trying to get over...

But it don't no way get it over and past --- me. Not without that "fly" suffering loss...

Abraham was credited with righteousness. That does not mean that he was righteous, but that due to his faith he was credited with righteousness --- Because he heard God, and believed God. (sola fide) ~faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God~

So far, nothing much is "fly[ing]" over those pesky "protestants'" heads...but that bluebird of happiness(?).. .he may be lightening his load right about now..? (don't be looking up about now, without yer' safety goggles on...in proper place)

Abraham was justified by faith (and following through, acting upon that same faith), not otherwise by his own inherent righteousness.

Instead, we can project (and we must) that this come to pass due to the Grace of God --- and in God's own continuance & fulfillment of His own promises made to Abram, when He called Abram from the Ur of the Chaldees, in the first place.

Freddie's dead...and

the "fly", though it may yet fly, will no longer reproduce...

I guess the thought never occurred that anyone can just make up anything they want about their scholastic degrees on an anonymous forum and who would know any different? It's not like anyone could check up on it. Unless someone reveals their actual name and cites their credentials and documentation is posted that proves what they claim, who would be the wiser? Not only that, having a degree only means classes were taken, exams were passed, papers were written, credits were earned and enough of them added up to the total needed to be awarded a degree. Advanced degrees require more, like oral dissertations and written work, but anyone can lie and say they have a PHD. or Masters in a given field and how could it be verified? It can't.

Not only that, we already have indications by some who have asserted someone's credentials don't really matter if they happen to disagree with their own religious beliefs and that "all" those who hold the opposing view are unable to accept truth and are intellectual wastelands. So tell me, what good would it do to mention one's degrees? I see this tactic as just another rabbit trail to avoid having to deal with the topic under discussion, a diversion that has no value.

A person's intellect and ability to communicate comes across in what they post as well as their knowledge on a topic, not to mention their frame of mind. Those who can only ape learned by rote answers and who denigrate and insult those who disagree with them ALSO come across and their comments are given the attention they deserve - which often means they are skipped. I have learned a lot from the many who take the time to give respectful, considered and well thought out answers and appreciate the value they add to Free Republic - whether I agree with them or not.

Just as I have asked a number of professed ex-Catholics that make the erroneous claim that Catholic worship Mary: Who taught you that? I want to know if some Catholic told them a lie or if they are repeating what they heard from others with an axe top grind.

And if someone were to relate to you their experience in Catholic school where a nun told her we should worship Mary and pray to her to save us, would you accept that testimony or accuse the person of lying about it? You can claim up one side and down the other that "official" Catholic church policy is that Catholics DON'T "worship" Mary, but you cannot possibly know what every Catholic has ever believed or been taught - you can't. Why don't you at least acknowledge that or does that terrify you?

You claimed you asked Metmom and I if we were taught to worship Mary, but your actual question was hedged because you asked whether we were taught that Catholics worship Mary as god. Different question entirely and not what was being discussed. Which was another reason why I ignored it.

The Jewish Canon was ordered in about 90 AD, at a Rabbinical school in Jamnia. They were not Christians and denied the divinity of Christ and the New Testament. The LXX Septuagint canon predates it by about 350 years and is still used by Ethiopian Jews to this day.

The Septuagint wasn't a "canon", it was a collection of books translated into Greek for those Old Testament books that were in Hebrew. Most of the extra books (Apocryphal) were originally written in Greek. It was used mainly by Alexandrian Jews who spoke Greek. If you are presuming that a book's presence in the Septuagint meant it was part of the Old Testament canon, then why were only seven of the FIFTEEN extra books added to the RC canon and not all of them?

Howbeit this kind cometh out only through ~~prayer and fasting~~ roasted [prime, select] fish guts?

Coming up next ---- make a fortune on the stock market

Try our [new!} introductory offer

how to read chicken entrails for "sign" and leading market indicators
(before those are leading indicators!)

You were complaining about me wanting to use labels and you were doing it yourself.

SIGH!

My complaint was that you presumed to place Springfield Reformer and I into the "pledged to the Reformers" box and concluded, wrongly, that since I made a passing reference to Martin Luther, I was pledged to him, too. Here's what you said:

Pauline Soteriology. Would will the Twelve Apostles judging on twelve thrones say about that ? There was a reformed theology from Luther and others who created a new religious movement without divine authority almost five centuries ago. Obviously Romans was not clear to them. Since you have pledged yourself, as it were, to the reformers, and I rest in the holy catholic apostolic church, we will not agree and await the judgment of Messiah and the Apostles.

My reply was:

Why is it many FRoman Catholics seem so incapable of seeing others without placing them in tidy boxes with labels on the outside? Neither SR nor I "pledged" ourselves to the reformers. All we've been trying to do is show the reformers were NOT the originators of the doctrines of sola Scriptura and sola fide but that these were clearly taught IN scripture and were held by many of the very first church "fathers". How is it you can just ignore all the quotes and references that have been posted which proved that?

You accused me of making up the term FRoman Catholic and I told you why I didn't. Sheesh! Do you argue with relatives in this manner, nitpicking words, majoring on the minor, avoiding talking about the point? It's a crummy way of having a discussion.

V: The Jewish Canon was ordered in about 90 AD, at a Rabbinical school in Jamnia. They were not Christians and denied the divinity of Christ and the New Testament. The LXX Septuagint canon predates it by about 350 years and is still used by Ethiopian Jews to this day.

BB: The Septuagint wasn't a "canon", it was a collection of books translated into Greek for those Old Testament books that were in Hebrew. Most of the extra books (Apocryphal) were originally written in Greek. It was used mainly by Alexandrian Jews who spoke Greek. If you are presuming that a book's presence in the Septuagint meant it was part of the Old Testament canon, then why were only seven of the FIFTEEN extra books added to the RC canon and not all of them?

Jamnia was a non-event. It was a relatively small gathering, and they were mainly just kicking around some questions about Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon (one doesn't have to wonder too much why those two were still controversial). It was not a major council and nothing by way of a comprehensive set of canonical decisions was produced. The fact remains the Jewish canon had formed and stabilized by a less than formal consensus by the time of Christ, and that was the canon used by Jesus and the apostles, and there is no evidence any copy of the Septuagint existing during the apostolic era included any of the disputed books, as the oldest physical copies with deuterocanonicals are of much later vintage, 4th/5th Century AD.

A good book detailing these facts is Roger Beckwith's major work, "The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church." I own it and recommend it highly.

Peace,

SR

And if you're not perfect, you don't get into heaven. So it's too late for everyone already.

We were little sinners while we still in diapers! Anyone who has survived their child's terrible twos, knows that sin doesn't have to be taught - it's innate. We aren't sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners.

"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Rom. 6:23)

Your key witness converted from Lutheranism to Orthodoxy in 1998 after meeting with blessed John Paul II and you still want to use a book he wrote in 1959 against Orthodoxy. This supplements my opinion that this is primarily an antiCatholic, or antiOrthodox itch that does not go away no matter how often one scratches. In fact, the more one scratches, the more it itches.

This "witness" (he wasn't "key", only one of two sources I cited) stated the truth and it can be verified. He is not writing against Orthodoxy so much as against the bogus claims of Rome against the Reformation. That there was no officially declared doctrine of justification in the Roman Catholic church prior to the Council of Trent should be pretty easy to disprove if it's not true. Having any luck in looking for it or is questioning my motives more gratifying?

Mr. Pelikan's choice of worship group doesn't change his point. The Orthodox, by the way, disagreed, and still do, with the Roman Catholics on many major tenets including papal primacy, papal infallibility and Purgatory. They excommunicated Rome and broke away in the eleventh century precisely because Rome had changed and invented novel doctrines not taught always, everywhere and by all. I actually think the Eastern Orthodox ARE much closer to the original faith than Roman Catholicism.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion as to why I participate on these threads. Though, I may be anti-Catholicism, I'm not anti-Catholic. I feel a leading from the Holy Spirit to speak on topics dealing with my former religious identity much like former Mormons or others do here. What usually prompts my response are erroneous assertions about non-Catholic Christians and the doctrines we believe in. I know what it was like being in darkness about God's grace and I praise the Lord every day for turning on the light in my heart and soul to receive the gospel and to live assured that I am saved by grace through faith in Christ and not on my works of righteousness. It is a joy I want everyone to know and I pray for those who read these threads. What your motivation is for scratching your itch, I won't presume. That's between you and God.

In Roman Catholic theology, the saints are in heaven. In the Bible, the saints are on earth. In scripture, everyone who has received Jesus Christ by faith is a saint. In Catholicism the hierarchy in Rome denies what scripture says. In scripture, saints are called to revere, worship, and pray to God alone. The Roman Catholic Church has corrupted what the Holy Spirit through scripture teaches.

Only by relegating Scripture to being a servant sentenced to be abused to serve Catholicism can one teach that in Scripture "saints" refers to a special distinct class of believers, who alone at death go to be with the Lord, while in reality all believers are called saints:

And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. (Romans 8:27)

In Catholicism this would mean the Spirit only makes intercession for a special distinct class of believers.

Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to hospitality. (Romans 12:13)

In Catholicism this would mean only a special distinct class of believers are to receive what Scripture elsewhere enjoins for all believers.

All the saints salute you. (2 Corinthians 13:13)

In Catholicism this would mean only a special distinct class of believers send greetings.

Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints; (Ephesians 6:18)

In Catholicism this would mean only a special distinct class of believers are to be prayed for.

Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons: (Philippians 1:1)

In Catholicism this would mean only a special distinct class of believers are addressed, not all the church.

Salute every saint in Christ Jesus. The brethren which are with me greet you. (Philippians 4:21)

In Catholicism this would mean only a special distinct class of believers are to be greeted, not all the brethren.

All the saints salute you, chiefly they that are of Caesar's household. (Philippians 4:22)

Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints. They of Italy salute you. (Hebrews 13:24)

Likewise.

To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. (Colossians 1:2)

Texts such as this, which Caths use to support a distinction btwn saints and brethren, do no such thing, as using another term for reinforcement and fuller description of the same thing is common in Scripture, such as,

Ye that fear the Lord, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel. (Psalms 22:23)

For who in the heaven can be compared unto the Lord? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the Lord? (Psalms 89:6)

And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. (Revelation 17:6)

And in Col. 1:2 above, "saints and faithful brethren," denote the same thing, but using using both terms provides a fuller description.

As for only one class of believers being fit and able to be with the Lord without suffering purifying torments in Rome's "Purgatory," this also is an invention, as wherever Scripture clearly speaks of the next conscious condition of believers after this life then it is with the Lord: (Luke 23:43; Acts 7:59; 1Cor. 15:52; 2 Cor 5:8; 1 Th 4:17; 1Jn. 3:2) The fact that Scripture teaches that every believer shall immediately be with the Lord for ever at His return is itself contrary to Purgatory. To God be the glory.

Meanwhile, the only postmortem suffering spoken of is that of suffering the loss of rewards, and thus the grievous shame of the Lord's disapproval, at the judgment seat of Christ, and which is at the return of the Lord, not commencing at death. (1Cor. 3:8ff) See here .

Meanwhile, the chastisement which works to make one more holy in character (Heb. 12) is done in this life, where alternatives to submitting to God can be made,

Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations: That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ: (1 Peter 1:6-7)

Thus even Christ was made perfect through sufferings in this life, though not as attaining moral perfection, but by being tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin. (Hebrews 4:15)

One either dies in saving faith to be present with the Lord or one suffers in Hell and then the Lake of Fire.

All RCs can claim is some sort of "implicit support" for postmortem purification, but texts used for purgatory either refer to this life or to the lost, or the judgment seat of Christ.

Even the EO's tend to reject Rome's purgatory (though they have a theory of preparation)

Also, the Orthodox Church does not believe in indulgences as remissions from purgatorial punishment. Both purgatory and indulgences are inter-corrolated theories, unwitnessed in the Bible or in the Ancient Church, and when they were enforced and applied they brought about evil practices at the expense of the prevailing Truths of the Church. If Almighty God in His merciful loving-kindness changes the dreadful situation of the sinner, it is unknown to the Church of Christ. The Church lived for fifteen hundred years without such a theory. — http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7076

But Protestants on this thread have no respect for her.

We need to decide. We also have a home in Jersey.

They did, however, teach us to pray to Mary, like the rosary, or after embarrassing myself in the confessional, so does the fact that we were taught to pray to her, make her divine?

It attributes to her the uniquely Divine position of being the object of prayer to Heaven, which always directly to God in the over 200 prayers in the Bible which God provided for us, and thus ascribes to her the uniquely Divine ability of hearing virtually infinite amounts of prayer addressed to her.

The Scriptures do not sanction religiously bowing down to any statue in supplication, and the Lord's instructions on who to pray to was "our Father who art in Heaven," not "our Mother", the former being what the Spirit also cries to, "Abba, Father," Gal. 4:6; not "Mama, Mother." The fact that the Lord Jesus is prayed to is a testament to His Deity, and He alone is set forth as the only Heavenly intercessor btwn God and man (1Tim. 2:5).

In addition, note that many Catholic Marian attributions much parallel even that of Christ:

For in the the Catholic quest to almost deify Mary, it is taught by Catholics*,

as Christ was sinless, so Mary was;
as the Lord remained a virgin, so Mary;
as Christ was called the Son of God, indicating ontological oneness, so Mary is called the Mother of God (which easily infers the same, and is not the language of Scripture);
as the emphasis is upon Christ as the Creator through whom God (the Father) made all things, including Mary, so it is emphasized that uniquely “to her, Jesus owes His Precious Blood,” shed for the salvation of mankind, (the logic behind which can lead back to Eve);
as Catholics (adding error to error) believe Christ gave His actual flesh and blood to be eaten, so it is emphasized that Mary gave Him this, being fashioned out of Mary's pure blood and even being “kneaded with the admixture of her virginal milk,” so that she can say, "Come and eat my bread, drink the wine I have prepared" (Prov. 9:5);
as Scripture declares that Christ suffered for our sins, so Mary is said to have done so also;
as Christ saves us from the condemnation and death resulting from the fault of Adam, so it is taught that man was condemned through the fault of Eve, the root of death, but that we are saved through the merits of Mary; who was the source of life for everyone.
as the Lord was bodily ascended into Heaven, so Mary also was;
as Christ is given all power in heaven and in earth, so Mary is “surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven.”
as Christ is the King of the saints and over all kings, (Rv. 15:3; 17:14; 19:16) so Mary is made Queen of Heaven and the greatest saint, and that “Next to God, she deserves the highest praise;”
as the Father made Christ Lord over all things, so Mary is enthroned (all other believers have to wait for their crowns) and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things;
as Christ is the express image of God, and highly exalted above all under the Father, having the primary position among all creation, so Mary is declared to be the greatest saint of all, and the first of all creatures, and as having a certain affinity with the Father, with a pre-eminent resemblance which she bears to the Father;
as Christ ever liveth to make intercession for the saints, so is Mary said to do so;
as all things come from the Father through the Son, so Mary is made to be the dispenser of all grace;
as Christ is given all power on Heaven and on earth, Mary is said to have (showing some restraint) “almost unlimited power;”
as no man comes to the Father but through the Son, so it is taught that no one can come to the Son except through Mary in Heaven;
and as the Lord called souls to come to Him to be given life and salvation, so (in misappropriation of the words of Scripture) it is said of Mary, “He that shall find me shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord;” “that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.”
And as Christ is given many titles of honor, so Mary also is, except that she is honored by Catholics with more titles than they give to the Lord Himself!

Mary was a holy, virtuous instrument of God, but of whom Scripture says relatively little, while holy fear ought to restrain ascribing positions, honor, glory and powers to a mortal that God has not revealed as given to them, and or are only revealed as being possessed by God Himself. But like as the Israelites made an instrument of God an object of worship, (Num. 21:8,9; 2Kg. 18:4) Catholics have magnified Mary far beyond what is written and warranted and even allowed, based on what is in Scripture.

In addition, although (technically) Mary is not to be worshiped in the same sense that God is worshiped, yet the distinctions between devotion to Mary and the worship of God are quite fine, and much due to the psychological appeal of a heavenly mother (especially among those for whom Scripture is not supreme), then the historical practice of Catholics has been to exalt Mary above that which is written. As the Catholic Encyclopedia states, "By the sixteenth century, as evidenced by the spiritual struggles of the Reformers, the image of Mary had largely eclipsed the centrality of Jesus Christ in the life of believers." (Robert C. Broderick, ed., The Catholic Encyclopedia, revised and updated; NY: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987, pp.32,33)

The practice of praying to departed saints and Mary was one that developed, helped by pagan influences, for Scripture provides no example of any believer praying to anyone in Heaven by the Lord, and reveals that doing otherwise was a practice of pagans, including to the “Queen of Heaven.” (Jer. 44:17,18,19,25). The Catholic Encyclopedia admits that a further reinforcement of Marian devotion, “was derived from the cult of the angels, which, while pre-Christian in its origin, was heartily embraced by the faithful of the sub-Apostolic age. It seems to have been only as a sequel of some such development that men turned to implore the intercession of the Blessed Virgin. This at least is the common opinion among scholars, though it would perhaps be dangerous to speak too positively. Evidence regarding the popular practice of the early centuries is almost entirely lacking...,” (Catholic Encyclopedia > Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary) Yet, as expected, it imagines this practice came from the apostles and NT church, but which never exampled or instructed it, and instead showed that the believer has immediate access to God in the Divine Christ, (Heb. 10:19), who is the all sufficient and immediate intercessor between God (the Father) and man. (Heb. 2:17,18; 4:15,16) To the glory of God

I'm amazed at all the amateur translators who pop up from time to time. What was that old ad line, "So simple, even a caveman can do it ?"

The funniest things to me are: 1)They whine that the apostles and prophets had no degrees, yet they forget they were given the information directly by either Christ Himself, or the prompting of the Holy Spirit. None of which applies to any of them.

2) They are convinced that Paul and or some of the Apostles set the Canon of the OT.

A friend o f mine keeps telling me: You can't fix red or stupid.

Note also that relegating texts which plainly state it is "Not by works of righteousness which we have done... (Titus 3:5) as only excluding of works being salvific if done under the Law versus works of charity, ignores the fact that the reason Paul sometimes uses the Law - which Titus 3:5 does not, and was written to a Gentile - is because "if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." (Galatians 3:21)

But Protestants on this thread have no respect for her.

Some may seem to express that in their reaction against Mariolatry, but this is not the case in simply rejecting the hyperexaltation by Caths in making the Mary of Scripture into,

• an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,

• whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,

• who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"

• and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain affinity with the Heavenly Father,"

• and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"

• for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"

• "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"

• so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."

• and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"

• for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"

• Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"

• and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"

• including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"

• whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"

• and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"

• and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation." Sources and more.

So where is your "error" and "The Greek word is eimi"?

Please ping me if you ever get an answer from the bear.