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.

[Mark17]

Thanks. 😄 I didn't know you were doing research. Glad to be of help. I know it was a little long, but it covered more than 40 years.

Peace.

[ealgeone]

As is common in your posts on this thread, you ignore everything that determines what a passage means, to latch onto a falsehood. It has been demonstrated sufficiently for all objective readers.

And yet catholics deny the literal account of Genesis 1. There is nothing symbolic about Genesis 1. If you don't get this right, you have a hard time getting the rest right.

God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine "work", concluded by the "rest" of the seventh day.204....CCC 337

And if that isn't enough, they even allow for believing in evolution! And don't say catholics don't.....remember...we have the internet.

[Springfield Reformer]

SR: “So rather than metmom coming in as representing some modern, novel speculation, she believes about this passage what Augustine believed, and many others early Christians of good reputation as well.”

MPU: Today, believing what the early church believed is referred to derisively as “Protestantism.” We know it is Christianity.

Yes, this is an ongoing problem in these conversations we're having. Catholics trace their authority as a function of uninspired history.  Evangelicals trace authority as a function of certified divine revelation, i.e., the truth content of any would-be authority as measured against Scripture.  This is why the starting point for Rome is always whatever random thing they've decided to dogmatize.  Got a doctrine that is missing from or inconsistent with Scripture? No problem. Just walk it backward into Scripture anachronistically by projecting present Roman dogmas back into the ancient texts, both Biblical and patristic.  This works even when the novelties are completely foreign to or even contradict what the original author was saying, because you only have to press the Magisterial Authority Override (MAO) button, and boom, you've got new dogma.  Just like 3D printing.

The real kick in the head is they then turn around and complain that "private judgment" leads to all sorts of doctrinal novelty among evangelicals, even though we don't have anything remotely as cool as a MAO button.  We are actually forced to get back in the ring again and again and defend our position against Scripture, a combat arena where only the most sound Scriptural arguments get any traction over time.  It's such a messy process, and I think this is part of the problem. Some folks would rather have it handed to them.  

This is where I see a real confluence, BTW, between Catholicism and the left.  It's about the having someone in total control, doling out the resources.  In the golden age of Rome, which was peaking just about the time the Roman schism was happening (c. 150-200ad), there was this massive welfare system, where Rome was handing out food and other resources on a large scale.  The Roman ecclesiastical faction that rose to power under the emperors was fully acclimated to that style of  total dependency on a centralized power structure and a sharply stratified social culture. Bread and circuses for the masses, "generously" provided by their earthly masters.

And when it is shown by solid evidence (Peter Lampe and others) that this ecclesiastical evolution really did take place, and that what came before it was a decentralized, but spiritually vital, generic Christianity, expressed even in Rome as a loose network of independent fellowships with no single bishop, it is we who are charged with revisionism, when in fact the revisionism is the work of Rome, to cover the trail of that messy, pope-less beginning.    

So as a result of that initial dictatorial imprint, Rome has evolved an entirely different way of approaching the doctrine of divine revelation. In Rome's culture, it is still emperor-driven, top down.  But Jesus designed us to avoid having a human "top banana," because there's only room at the top for one Person, Jesus Himself. That we would ever have to look to some single top mortal was specifically denied by Jesus. Instead, we were told we would receive a body of truth from the Holy Spirit, and we did, and we were to be guided by that body of truth, not by a succession of Roman Emperor wannabes. 

This is why evangelicals of all periods since the apostolic era have rejected these pretensions to imperial power, and instead have protected the handing on of Scripture, even to the point of martyrdom when necessary.  The fact remains that Jesus was building His Ecclesia and could not then and cannot now or ever be stopped.  This is why the Reformation was inevitable. The suffocating power of Rome was such that if God had not broken its back, there would have been no place of refuge for those generic, genuine Christians who are His body. 

So evangelicals have a revelation-driven model, and Rome has an emperor-driven model.  This is so pervasive in the thinking of each it is genuinely hard for one side to understand the other.  We have our very own Denominational Inquisitor (you know who you are), who constantly badgers us about what top-down model we belong to, when the whole point is we don't even accept the premise of a human top-down model.  We don't rely on a mechanical succession of office holders, least of all a spurious list of supposed popes.  We rely on the unseen power of God at work in disseminating the Gospel to the elect, wherever they may be, by the going forth of His word according to His purposes.

This leads to a complete misunderstanding on their part of how we use and relate to these labels, why we are able as a group, to consistently represent a unified front on all major tenets of the Gospel, as well as a unified understanding of Christian morality, which expresses itself as solid support for traditional moral values in public life.  It's not about the labels, it's about God at work, and Jesus building His Ecclesia.  Sorry AF, I don't need to file papers for that one; they were already submitted some 2000 years ago and entered in Jesus' name. Who am I to question the word choices of the Holy Spirit?

In any event, this huge difference in perspective cannot be overcome by "flesh and blood" argumentation.  Divine intervention is the only hope, just as it was for Peter, and all who have followed his example of faith.  Yet Paul says faith comes by hearing of the word of God, and so we remain constant, in season and out, in presenting the truths of divine revelation, according to the rule of divine wisdom presented in James:

But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.
(James 3:17-18)

Because we know that with God, all things are possible.

Peace,

SR

[ealgeone]

And then there's this from the catechism.....more denying the literal account of what happened in Genesis.

The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265 CCC 390

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm

So were Adam and Eve really tempted by Satan?

Was Satan really more crafty than any beast of the field?

Perhaps, from the catholic perspective, the curses by God were "figurative" in nature....not real.

If you don't get the foundation right, the whole house is built on sinking sand.

Waiting for figurative to be redefined in 3....2....1

[metmom]

This works even when the novelties are completely foreign to or even contradict what the original author was saying, because you only have to press the Magisterial Authority Override (MAO) button, and boom, you've got new dogma. Just like 3D printing.

LOL!!! Because it's so true....

[Mrs. Don-o]

"This will be evaluated using the Biblical standard and not man’s standard."

Right. You evaluate it your way, and I'll evaluate it His way.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“So evangelicals have a revelation-driven model, and Rome has an emperor-driven model. This is so pervasive in the thinking of each it is genuinely hard for one side to understand the other. We have our very own Denominational Inquisitor (you know who you are), who constantly badgers us about what top-down model we belong to, when the whole point is we don’t even accept the premise of a human top-down model. We don’t rely on a mechanical succession of office holders, least of all a spurious list of supposed popes. We rely on the unseen power of God at work in disseminating the Gospel to the elect, wherever they may be, by the going forth of His word according to His purposes. “

+1

[CynicalBear]

>>I'll evaluate it His way.<<

Be truthful now. It's really the way of the Catholic Church right? After all, it's the Catholic Church in which Catholics place their faith.

[Mrs. Don-o]

It’s Christ in Whom we place our faith. Christ who said “I will build my Church.”

[CynicalBear]

>>Christ who said “I will build my Church.”<<

Christ said He would build His ekklesia. No where in scripture can the concept of the Catholic Church concept of "church" be found. So I will repeat, Catholics put their faith in what the Catholic Church teaches rather than what scripture teaches.

[ealgeone]

>"This will be evaluated using the Biblical standard and not man’s standard."<

Right. You evaluate it your way, and I'll evaluate it His way.

His way is the Biblical standard.

[Religion Moderator]

**”you” was plural, a reference to the Protestant Reformation in general.”**

Then you should have made that clear.

Even though you pinged several people, the following comment was properly taken to refer to the one poster you were replying to:

“You violated the Holy Scripture on that one. Big time. Own it.”

If you did indeed direct it to each of the posters on the ping list you used, it was personal to each of them.

Discuss the issues all you want but do not make it personal

[BlueDragon]

Added to my FR profile public bookmarks.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Amen to that!!!

[Springfield Reformer]

I proved, -- in fact, it is obvious, -- that in this passage:

 the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep. (1 Cor. 11:23-30)

the "body" and "blood" refers to the consecrated Eucharist because they cite the words of Christ referring to his body and blood at the Last Supper. When Protestants deny that, they look comical and do no favor to their religion. now everyone can see that Protestant theories are not based on the Holy Scripture altogether, but rather on your notions what the Scripture should or should not be saying.

Well, no.  What you've got there falls well short of "proof" of real presence as understood by Aquinas/Trent. For one thing, you have extracted the section reciting the description of the Lord's Supper from its driving context.  We know for a fact what was bothering Paul.  It wasn't that they were not having a proper gnostic epiphany about the true substance of the paschal meal.  Or if they were, please point that out to me because I've had this section in my Bible for many years and never saw any such thing. Most likely because it isn't there.

Instead, what we know is that Paul was rattling their cages over their cold disregard for their brother Christians, pigging out and partying, when the whole purpose of that meal was to draw believers into a deeper relationship with Christ and each other by bringing to mind what Christ did for them on the cross.  Because that is where, if you're ever going to find it, you're going to find the grounds for love of people not like yourself.  We all who name Jesus Christ as our Savior are admitting, by definition, that we are utter failures in righteousness, that we have all had to come crawling, empty-handed, to the cross, the place of His death for us, to seek His forgiveness, reconciliation with the Father, and with our brother and sister Christians.

But when we come to the memory of that sacrifice, and fail to discern what we are doing by partaking of that meal, by being crude and unloving toward the very souls that came to Christ by the same humiliating journey, then we have forgotten who we really are, and have drifted from the message of the cross.  And that is the nail that Paul is driving home hard.  How can you come to this meal as some common pagan food party?  Do you not know of what this meal speaks?  Can you not discern that the body of Christ, though given up on that tree, is all around you right now, in the person of your fellow believers?  And that is why you are wounding Christ again, "guilty of the body and of the blood," when you come with such disregard and lack of love.  You ARE wounding His body, the very one you are supposedly honoring by this meal, by playing the hypocrite toward your brother.

Remember what Jesus said to Paul on the Road to Damascus? Paul, why are you persecuting Me?  What we do to each other as believers really matters.  We really are His body.  Whatever we do to each other we are doing to Him. We dare not take that lightly. And we dare not divert from the truths given to us concerning our love for each other, and exchange those truths for senseless, divisive debates about Aristotelian substance versus accidence.  The irony is absolutely overwhelming at times.

Just think about it.  The reason for the confusion that evolved later over the elements was Greek theurgy, not Biblical theology.  We don't make contact with divine reality through bits of sympathetic materiality.  That idea belongs to the pagans, and they can keep it. The true bridge to God is entirely spiritual, the way of faith in the Son of God. Can a person run the course of his whole life and miss the obvious because it is too easy? Absolutely.  But He is a God of mercy, in which case there is always cause for hope.

Peace,

SR

[ealgeone]

Amen to that!!!

So you're amening to the fact catholics worship Mary as defined by the Bible...? There's hope for you yet.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"So you're amening to the fact catholics worship Mary as defined by the Bible...?"

You're so amazing! You seem to be almost preternaturally adept at comprehensive misinterpretation.

[verga]

(Iglesia ni Cristo, or as I like to call it, Iglesia ni Manalo)

Okay that is just straight up hilarious.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“But when we come to the memory of that sacrifice, and fail to discern what we are doing by partaking of that meal, by being crude and unloving toward the very souls that came to Christ by the same humiliating journey, then we have forgotten who we really are, and have drifted from the message of the cross. “

Elegantly put and truthfully presented.