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.

[terycarl]

sure they did. If you read he bible and interpret it PROPERLY it is very easy to see. Based on whose understanding? The Roman Pontiff to which all catholics are to submit based on catholic writings....or an individual's own personal understanding?? The question begs to be answered.

Beg no more....we have our choice, rely on the interpretation of the church which has been around for 2,015 years and 3 days, or based on each individuals own understanding......let's see now...Hmmmmmmm, maybe I'll stick with many of the most educated, brilliant,gifted, inspired people who ever lived instead of counting on the variety of different opinions expressed on this thread about the very same subjects....

[terycarl]

Careful though....any disagreement with catholicism may be "hate" as labeled by some.

I don't hate anyone who disagrees with the Catholic church....I do however, feel sorry for their blindness in the presence of bright sunshine (Catholicism)

[Syncro]

So, Jesus did NOT eat his own flesh and pass it around for his followers to eat. That would have been a mess.

unless they were eating the bread and drinking the wine that He had transubstantiated into His Body and Blood.

That's the third time you have agreed with me about that. Messy and gross.

Attend a Mass someday and witness it for yourself

I have, there was nothing of the kind to witness. Jesus doesn't do that. (Scripture would have made something as important as that known to believers if it was to happen. Just because a cool big word is used to describe it doesn't make it a Scriptural fact.)

Just like it doesn't say Mary remained a virgin and was "assumed" into heaven.

Both made up to keep the followers of the belief system mesmerized by "mysteries."

Oh, BTW a young Catholic dropped a crumb on the floor and it was not noticed. Was that a part of Jesus just laying there on the floor?

[ealgeone]

You just said you didn’t have to be subject to the pope in defiance of an ex cathedra statement. Catholics have no choice but to be subject to the pope bases on catholic teachings. No room for negotiation on that. So a catholic is either obeying the pope or not.

[terycarl]

“entirely subject to the Roman pontiff” does not allow for the exceptions you are allowing for your self.

sure it does...He thinks capitalists are greedy and sit on too much money...I don't agree and know that capitalists give a larger portion of THEIR money to the poor than do those in any other monetary system....we disagree....he really doesn't care and neither does God...

[boatbums]

the church which has been around for 2,015 years and 3 days

At first I excused your exaggeration of the time you say your religion has been around as you just "rounding off". But, by taking it further and adding three days (January 3, 2015), you are only sounding silly. How can you possibly think Roman Catholicism came into existence before Jesus was even incarnated??? I'd like to hear your rationalization for this doozy.

[ealgeone]

Now catholics are redefining “entirely”! This is very revealing.

[terycarl]

He [the pope] might say that he loves the president of Venezuela....I think that man is a tryant[sic] and should be done away with.

Note I said I Think...an opinion... Wow, does your strange "spirit" agree with you 100%?

I didn't seek the assistance of the Holy Spirit on that one so no, He probably wouldn't agree. He and I agree 100% when I seek His help and He gives it to me.....just like you say that you do. Well that pretty much proves that it isn't the Holy Spirit that "agrees with you 100%." If you can be wrong. He NEVER agrees with wrongness

of course He doesn't agree with wrongness, nor do I seek His advice on every decision that I make...I seek His help on an overall basis and He keeps me pretty straight...we agree 100% on His guidance....If I agree, and don't follow my best instincts...that's my bad, not His.

[ealgeone]

Dude.....you’re squirming so much. Admit it....you don’t really believe all catholic teaching.

[terycarl]

Nope.....you are entirely subject to the roman pontiff....it's ex cathedra. You have no choice. it's never too late to leave catholicism for the Truth however

I can't leave...he told me not to.

[terycarl]

Oh, BTW a young Catholic dropped a crumb on the floor and it was not noticed. Was that a part of Jesus just laying there on the floor?

yes

[terycarl]

I'd like to hear your rationalization for this doozy.

I don't think that this silly post is worth answering because it is OBVIOUSLY an apparent exaggeration....with all the exaggerating that protestants and those aligned with nothing post here, I thought I'd toss back a little nonsense of my own......just forget those 3 days and call it even.

[terycarl]

Dude.....you’re squirming so much. Admit it....you don’t really believe all catholic teaching.

I never squirm and I have NEVER been uncomfortable with anything that the Catholic church teaches

[ealgeone]

If you've never been uncomfortable with what the rcc teaches, then you are subject entirely to the pope. No ifs, ans, buts or ors.....entirely. What he says you are subject to. You cannot deny it......we'll you can but then you're disobeying an ex cathedra statement of the pope. But then you've already said you don't agree with what he says so you're already in violation of an ex cathedra statement.

This has been informative but I'm off to bed now.

[boatbums]

The common complaint RCs make against those they call "Protestants" - which, according to a few here is ANYONE who isn't a Roman Catholic but who is a Christian - is that there are as many "interpretations" as there are Protestants. This obviously ridiculous claim is nothing more than a lame attempt to infer "their" religion's superiority because they insist there is unity among all RCs on "interpretation". Now, we KNOW that isn't true at all and right here in this thread are multiple examples of RCs who disagree with each other on matters of faith and morals. Some just refuse to admit that, but it doesn't make it any less true.

But, just for the sake of argument, what is the way we can know the truth of Scripture? If Joe says one thing and John says another, and both claim they were led by the Holy Spirit to their beliefs, then how would anyone know which interpretation was true and which was not true? We start with Scripture, of course, and see if there is a clear sense given for a teaching. When the early church leaders encountered heretical teachings, they used the authority of the ONLY resource we have been given directly by God - His holy word, Scripture. Now there are some areas that are considered "essential" precepts of Christianity - meaning they are doctrines that have ALWAYS been believed by Christians going back to the start. Then there are areas that are "nonessential", meaning they aren't specifically taught one way or another in Scripture (examples could be like "going to the movies"; "how a person dresses"; "what days should we go to 'church'"; "who should I vote for"; "who should I marry"; etc.) and even in these areas, it is true that Scripture still gives us guidelines that we can use to decide on the non-essentials.

Essential tenets of Christianity are like the Trinity, the Deity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth of Jesus, His sinlessness, His death, burial and resurrection for our sins, that Jesus will come again to judge the living and the dead, that Christ has an everlasting kingdom and other doctrines. Essential doctrines are also those beliefs that are necessary for salvation, that if a person rejects them, he isn't saved. Things like, "believing in Jesus Christ as my Savior"; "receiving God's gift of eternal life through faith"; "trusting in the finished work of Christ on the cross for my sins and not on my own good works or righteousness to save me".

So, getting back to the argument about myriad interpretations of the Bible, if a person says he is a Christian but he states he doesn't believe that Jesus is Almighty God in the flesh and that the Holy Spirit led him to that belief, is there any way to disprove his claim or does he have just as much right as anyone to "make it up as he wants"? I think we know the answer. No matter what someone claims the Holy Spirit said to him, if he denies a basic, essential doctrine of Christianity - something that has always been believed by Christians and clearly taught in the Bible - then he isn't being led by the Holy Spirit. There are absolute truths in Christianity, things that are true whether anyone believes them or not and that NEVER change, WILL never change.

That's why the canard of "as many interpretations as there are Protestants" is bogus. There are essential truths that differentiate Christianity from every false religion that exists or ever did exist. The Bible spells these things out clearly and they are NOT optional. To be a Christian, one must believe and accept certain things. NO ONE has free reign to make up whatever he wants and still call himself a Christian. God is who declares truth and He made sure we would always have a witness to that truth - His sacred word. Together with that and through the leading and guiding of the indwelling Holy Spirit ANYONE can know the truth and there WILL be genuine unity on the essentials.

Those non-essentials? Well, many of those ARE suited to an individual. What may be okay fine for me, may not be a good thing for you and vice versa. That is why we should always be open to the Holy Spirit and pray for God's guidance who will lead us into ALL truth.

[boatbums]

Then how about you stop being so dogmatic about it for a change? Try a smiley face, maybe. ☺

[MamaB]

Well, some of y’all need to since a lot of it is not Biblical.

[Mark17]

I imagine if he was here today and saw what has been done under his name, he would be extremely upset and disappointed.

If Peter were here today, I think he would be more than extremely upset and disappointed. I think he would be outright hostile, to see what has been done under his name.

[Mark17]

Mom, did you feel what I felt, when people were trying to tell me the truth? I felt a lot of animosity toward them, because I thought they were trying to disturb the religious peace. When I watched their pure lives however, I could not poke any holes in it, and I realized they had something I didn’t, and it just seemed to make me more angry, because I knew my lifestyle fell far short of theirs. It wasn’t till I found faith in Christ myself, that the hate and bitterness left me. I then apologized to some of the people I had bad mouthed before. They just took it in stride, and never bothered to respond to anything I may have said previously, they just welcomed me into the fellowship. I don’t know what others have experienced, I only know what I experienced. That is why I ask.

[Springfield Reformer]

I would like your commentary on these scriptures.
Matt. 26-29.

26 And they were eating, Jesus took the bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27 and he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Could the 29th verse be read in a way that Jesus, Himself, affirmed that what he was drinking was 'fruit of the vine', and he will drink 'the fruit of the vine' AGAIN. Thus affirming that what he drank was not blood, but, "FRUIT OF THE VINE".

Where am I going wrong? I do not see where the Romist can come to any other conclusion.

Well, I don't think you are going wrong.  I've raise that same point with some of my RC correspondents in the past.  I don't recall ever getting a response.  But just for fun, I looked up what the standard reply would be if I were on the other side of the argument, and it goes something like this:

The wine is fruit of the vine.  But Jesus is the vine and we are the branches.  So Jesus is really not referring to a vine but to his physical constituents, body and blood.  Such that when we partake of the Eucharist, this is how we physically abide in Him and He in us and therefore bear much fruit.

Got that?  Clear as mud, I know.  So we leap from a literal wine into a previously mentioned metaphor for spiritual indwelling, the Vine discourse, that had nothing to do with the Eucharist, and was never contemplated as physical.  Then we jump back to the wine of the paschal meal as though we've secured Aristotelian substance (though we haven't) and say, see, here you thought he was talking about the literal fruit of the vine, but by this trick of inverted metaphor, we've shown he was metaphorically referring to the other non-metaphor of his physical body and blood. Viola! Easy! Right?

Well, it is quite an incoherent mess.  Which is probably why only folks who are comfortable with that sort of thing would even attempt it.  Fortunately so far here, I have not seen any RC attempt it, which is much to their credit as logicians.  

The truth of the matter is, the reference to "fruit of the vine" is very damaging to the claim of transubstantiation.  Jesus is clearly not referring something which looks like wine but really isn't.  The substance really is, even after the blessing, still a fruit substance.  No change occurred.  Other than spiritual and mental.  Here's the crazy thing.  Why does a spiritually real thing seem somehow less real than a physically real thing?  God is spirit, and He's more real than you or I or anything else there is.  Spirit is real.  If Jesus is binding us to the memory of His love and sacrifice for us through the simple beauty of this sacred meal, and it's all happening spiritually, how is that less real than skin and muscle and blood?  It isn't.  It's about worshiping Him in spirit and in truth.  That's how we come to dwell in Him and He in us. That is our true food. Not some bit of man-made bread.

Anyway, hope that helps.

Peace,

SR