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.

[Mrs. Don-o]

What?

[CynicalBear]

The hypocrisy and double standard is almost commical.

[ealgeone]

As for me, I've not but seen Mrs. Don-O represent herself but under the authority of the Catholic Church, teaching the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is not dependent on Sola Scriptura, to which Catholics trying to scratch off their baptism would do well to headmen to.

Actually, I've seen Mrs Don-O disagree with catholic teaching on this thread. I'll have to dig her comment up on this.

[af_vet_1981]

By media accounts I meant how the media covered the event. All they wanted to do was to center in on the bad Hells Angels and the hippie movement. One of whom stopped a guy who was pointing a gun at Jagger. It was loaded. Yeah, just like the cops who kill someone to keep them from killing someone else, he could have tried to wrestle the gun away from him instead of stabbing him. BTW, in spite of the biased media stories, he was acquitted of the murder charges.

I find it odd that you defend that particularly violent motorcycle gang.

The Stones had used Hell's Angels at their Hyde Park concert, but English Hell's Angels were a far cry from the visigoths of the Oakland chapter. The Stones' infatuation with the heraldry of the Hell's Angels could be the beginning of a big problem, but attempting to explain this to Mick Jagger was fruitless.

"Listen, man," Scully was trying to tell Mick, "you can't hire Hell's Angels. They're, uh, not for hire."

Jagger quizzed him peevishly, "Wot you saying then, exactly?" Surely, reasoned Sir Mick, the Hell's Angels would leap at the opportunity to act as the Praetorian Guard for the Stones, wouldn't they?

"Waaal, Mick, I dunno...."

Sam Cutler, the Stones' rowdy tour manager, was equally smitten. "Oh, come off it, the Hell's Angels would be perfect. We used 'em in Hyde Park."

"Uh, Sam, those kids, excuse me, were not Hell's Angels. They had 'Hell's Angels' painted on their jackets, fer redacted! Like a costume party! These guys are red-and-white, real-time, Death's Head Angels! They went to Korea! Vietnam! They're redacted killers!"

Mick and Sam exchanged very noisy winks and soon decided to "hire" the Hell's Angels for a truckload of, I'm not kidding, ice and beer.

...

The Stones put the Hell's Angels in charge of security, but the Angels didn't show up; the real dudes were at a big meeting of the entire Bay Area governing board of thieves and plunderers, deciding how to divide up the territory. This is the Yalta of gang powwows, and, Stones concert or no Stones concert, the Angels are very turf-conscious, like a pack of wild boars in rutting season.

So that left "prospects" as the only Angels at Altamont, young cats trying to prove themselves. What you had was East Bay rowdies on Ripple and ludes. Out of control with no one to rein them in. Pure gelignite.

This Day in History

In August 1969, the massive, three-day Woodstock Music & Art Fair had proved that hundreds of thousands of young people could gather peacefully even in a seemingly chaotic environment rich with sex, drugs and rock and roll. Four months later, it would become clear that Woodstock owed its success not to the inherent peacefulness of the 1960s youth culture, but to the organizational acumen of the event's producers. That idea was proven in the violent, uncontrolled chaos of the disastrous Altamont Speedway Free Festival, held on this day in 1969 in the northern California hills 60 miles east of San Francisco.

Altamont was the brainchild of the Rolling Stones, who hoped to cap off their U.S. tour in late 1969 with a concert that would be the West Coast equivalent of Woodstock, in both scale and spirit. Unlike Woodstock, however, which was the result of months of careful planning by a team of well-funded organizers, Altamont was a largely improvised affair that did not even have a definite venue arranged just days before the event. It was only on Thursday, December 4, 1969, that organizers settled on the Altamont Speedway location for a free concert that was by then scheduled to include Santana; the Jefferson Airplane; Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young; and the Grateful Dead, all in support of the headlining Stones. The event would also include, infamously, several dozen members the Hells Angels motorcycle gang acting as informal security staff in exchange for $500 worth of beer as a "gratuity."

It was dark by the time the concert's next-to-last act, the Grateful Dead, was scheduled to appear. But the Dead had left the venue entirely out of concern for their safety when they learned that Jefferson Airplane singer Marty Balin had been knocked unconscious by one of the Hells Angels in a melee during his band's performance. It was during the Rolling Stones' set, however, that a 21-year-old Hells Angel named Alan Passaro stabbed a gun-wielding 18-year-old named Meredith Hunter to death just 20 feet in front of the stage where Mick Jagger was performing "Under My Thumb." Unaware of what had just occurred, the Rolling Stones completed their set without further incident, bringing an end to a tumultuous day that also saw three accidental deaths and four live births.

The killing of Meredith Hunter at Altamont was captured on film in Gimme Shelter, the documentary of the Stones' 1969 tour by Albert and David Maysles and Charlotte Zwerin, which opens with Jagger viewing the footage in an editing room several months later. In the years since, Jagger has not spoken publicly about the killing, for which Passaro was tried but acquitted on grounds of self-defense.

[rwa265]

Your response doesn’t answer all of the questions.

How do you know they’re from the apostles?

How do you know they’ve been written into the Gospels faithfully?

What is the source for verifying all of the above?

Can you provide authentic, reliable, information documenting who wrote the gospels, when they were written, and where they were written.

[CynicalBear]

>>Can you provide authentic, reliable, information documenting who wrote the gospels, when they were written, and where they were written.<<

You have evidently not studied the many and varied attempts to discredit them. I would suggest you do so. It's very enlightening.

[annalex]

weak and nonsensical

things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication (Acts 15:29)

Idols, strangling and fornication do not point to a church service, do they?

[CynicalBear]

>>Idols, strangling and fornication do not point to a church service, do they?<<

They point to the individuals in those services. But then Catholics have idols in their churches so I suppose the trend simply continues with ignoring the prohibition against eating blood as well.

[annalex]

I don’t remember seeing a passage of Scripture ever that indicated the Lord’s Supper was celebrated without both elements of unleavened bread and wine.

Again, you want a scriptural reference to practices that are determined not by the scripture but by the Church. The Eucharist is celebrated, for sure, both with bread and the wine as both are consecrated and transubstantiate. However it is entirely possible to receive communion in one element alone. Some consider wine -- as in its physiological effect wine is still wine -- inappropriate for children, or for alcoholics; some are intolerant to wheat, for wheat physiologically remains wheat. Also some churches simply do not have enough ministers of the Holy Communion to give both species, -- how do you propose a single priest to give both? I went to one church, Roman Rite, in Sacramento that was so crowded that the communion was given routinely only in bread, and the wine was consumed by the priest only.

It appears you believe Paul has a very short attention span

The fact is, Paul mentions the Real Presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist in these verses. Therefore St. Paul considers the Real Presence a fact. Even if he mentions that in the middle of talking of something else, it is still evidence of his belief. But, of course, to make a sacramental reference in the middle of ecclesiological discussion is entirely normal for a Catholic. That a Protestant sees it as if it were out of context only demonstrates how remote Protestantism is from authentic Christianity taught by the apostles.

shipwrecked on an island

Christ did not build the Church on an island. He built it on the two elements most commonly found everywhere: bread and wine. That some distant and unlikely circumstance can be imagined when those are not available does not alter what St. Paul taught in Corinth where finding bread and wine was not a problem.

[don-o]

I post very little in the RF, but read a fair amount. I won’t wade into the substance of whatever this latest discussion is. However, as FReepers who possess basic reading comprehension and a modicum of critical analysis skill already know, Mrs is quite well informed and writes with an exemplary combination of precision and grace.

Thanks for the ping. I am a Tennessean and was early on impressed with Andrew Jackson and how he dealt with those who impugned his honor and that of his wife.

[don-o]

Actually, I've seen Mrs Don-O disagree with catholic teaching on this thread. I'll have to dig her comment up on this.

Friendly suggestion: Pack a substantial lunch. And be prepared to ask that ridiculous comment be deleted.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Actually, I've seen Mrs Don-O disagree with catholic teaching on this thread. I'll have to dig her comment up on this.'

You'll either have to document this or apologize for it, ealgeone.

(I'm not blaming you for it, though. It's a topic where anyone could innocently make inadvertent mistakes.) I haven't been in on this thread since yesterday, since I've been reading and cooking. My Real Life outside of FR!!

[rwa265]

You have evidently not studied the many and varied attempts to discredit them. I would suggest you do so. It’s very enlightening.

---

I have read several such attempts, which has led me to search for historical evidence, which is somewhat hard to find. That is why I am asking if you can provide authentic, reliable, information documenting who wrote the gospels, when they were written, and where they were written.

[ealgeone]

ealgeone: >Actually, I've seen Mrs Don-O disagree with catholic teaching on this thread. I'll have to dig her comment up on this.<

don-o wrote: Friendly suggestion: Pack a substantial lunch. And be prepared to ask that ridiculous comment be deleted.

Mrs Don-o wrote in post 3795:

You are mistaken. We have always known, for instance, that such Old Testament men of faith as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and Elijah are in heaven, and they were not, precisely, members of the Catholic Church. They were not even, precisely, Christians, although we can truly say they believed in the One Who was coming: they believed in anticipation.

We also know that God can sovereignly save anyone and by any means He wishes:

"God's grace has been revealed, and has made salvation possible for the whole human race." (Titus 2:11)

and again,

"God our Savior wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim 2:4).

This is not an avowing of Universalism on my part --- I believe this to be an error --- but it is part of the Catholic belief that, though we are bound by the Sacraments, God is not bound by them

This article has a pretty good explanation of that from a Catholic perspective. This is not new stuff. This is old stuff.

Merry Fifth Day of Christmas...

And a Happy New Year!

I replied back to her and others in my post 3805 for which she did not have a respone.

I don't think I'll be submitting that request to have the comment deleted....but I appreciate the "friendly" suggestion.

BTW.....my lunch was pretty good.

[rwa265]

ALL pagan ‘priests’ say some kind of mumbo-jumbo; too

---

But they don’t usually say it “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

[don-o]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3237145/posts?page=3805#3805

Hotlink to the post that you are said to have not answered.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thank you for looking up these quotes, ealgeone. None of this is in conflict with Catholic doctrine. The Catholic Church does not maintain that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Elijah, Samuel, and the other holy men and women of the Old Testament were not saved.

While it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846-847) LINK, there are exceptions(CCC 847).

For instance, the Church recognizes Baptism of Desire, by which, if a person desired to do all things pleasing to God, they were implicitly desiring Baptism; and if they did not actually enter the Catholic Church via outward Baptism --- through no fault of their own --- God will nevertheless judge them mercifully because He examines the heart and not the outward appearance.

For instance, His Word guarantees that those who forgive, are forgiven (Luke 6:37); those who show others mercy, shall obtain mercy (Matthew 5:7).

[DuncanWaring]

Why would someone need to put in a *good word* for us with the Savior who came to seek and save the lost, the One who went to the cross to die for us HIMSELF?

Why do some here post threads asking others to pray on their behalf? Do you advise them that their own prayers are perfectly adequate, and that there is no need to ask others to pray on their behalf?

Not only do Catholics pray to Mary, we also pray to other mere mortals.

Sometimes, those prayers yield miracles. When that happens, we acknowledge them to be capital-s Saints.

One good example is Mother Cabrini, whose intercession regenerated the chemically-destroyed eyes of a newborn Peter Smith.

[ealgeone]

No....the point made by don-o was that I had said you disagreed with catholic teaching and he challenged me on that.

Your quote was:"This is not an avowing of Universalism on my part --- I believe this to be an error --- but it is part of the Catholic belief that, though we are bound by the Sacraments, God is not bound by them."

From the context of your original post it gives the appearance of you disagreeing with catholicism.

If this is a mis-characterization of your statement that's another thing.

[ealgeone]

For instance, His Word guarantees that those who forgive, are forgiven (Luke 6:37); those who show others mercy, shall obtain mercy (Matthew 5:7).

Advocating once saved, always saved?

You're getting there! :)