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.

[ealgeone]

You seem to be conflating disciplines with dogmas. It's a very easy mistake to make, and I can tell you for a fact that Catholics do it all the time. The validity of elections and so forth is a matter of canon law. That can change. It is not a doctrine of the Church.

If this present Pope wanted his successor to be chosen by taking a name out of a hat, he could do that and what would change is electoral practice, not a doctrine of the Faith.

But don't you think it casts a negative shadow of the papacy? I mean, he's supposed to be the vicar of Christ per rcc teaching. I'd think the rcc would want that selection to be as above board as possible.

[CynicalBear]

>>I hope this analogy will be taken for whatever small soupy sense it makes!<<

It makes no sense whatsoever since the premise is based on a corrupted concept of what ekklesia means.

[Mark17]

Mrs DO, you seem like a very nice, reasonable person to me, so let me see if I can make a little sense of this. First let me say, I have attended Assembly of God churches, Southern Baptist churches and Calvary Chapel. I think it was AMPU that said he doesn't care what church you attend. I agree with him, salvation is in a relationship with God, not in some church. Now, let me say, I am not an expert on the role of women in the church. I AM an expert on the plan of salvation. That I do know extremely well, but I will try and give my opinion, but I want to hear what others think too. God has given the pastoral duties to men. I have heard that it might go all the way back to the garden of Eden. Eve was deceived by Satan, into sinning. She was deceived. Adam, on the other hand, was not deceived at all. He walked right into sin, eyes wide open. It is possible (notice I say only possible) that men are placed in authority, due to the fact that men are not as easily deceived in spiritual matters (again, only possible, I don't know this for certain) I have seen some great women as Sunday school teachers, and of course, I think women are the greatest thing since sliced bread. I have seen them serve wonderfully in other ministries too.

Now, the 1st Cor 14 thing. My opinion is, this may have been something to cover a local situation. I understand that in their services, the men sat on one side, the women sat on the other side. From what I have been able to gather, is they were calling across the room to their husbands, and disrupting the services. This may have been simply to keep order. I do agree, the women should ask the husband, who is to spiritually lead his wife. Does he lord it over her? Absolutely not. It is just the hierarchy God has set up. As I said, I am very good at the plan of salvation, which is the very most important thing in the entire universe. Some of these other less important issues, I am not so well versed in. I would feel much better deferring to amoreperfectunion and imardmd1. I think they might have a better grasp on some those finer points.

Of course, if you are inquiring about the plan of salvation, I, along with all of these born again Christains can surely help you or anyone who needs it. I hope that helps somewhat, but ask the two I mentioned. I think they are better on those points.

[Mark17]

Yes, I think you are on to something there. Just be ready. 😄

[CynicalBear]

>>In general, I am pre-trib, but I don’t worry much about it because what’s going to happen is what’s going to happen and what I believe in it isn’t going to affect that.<<

While I do agree in principle I do have a slightly different take on that.

1 Thessalonians 4:13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.

Now it's not a requirement to understand but it does give a sense of peace and another level of defence against those who would deceive.

[metmom]

Paul does indeed give the reason for women to not be in roles of spiritual authority over men in that Eve was deceived.

Now, that also makes me wonder, what role women play in Catholicism, especially in regards to nuns.

I take it then, that nuns CANNOT teach men anything or tell them anything, nor be in ANY position of authority over any man, if the same criteria were being applied to Catholic women as are being applied to FReeperettes.

Would that not be correct?

[Mark17]

It is 2:30 AM, Wed morning here. Good night 😄

[af_vet_1981]

These are beautiful and intriguing thoughts. "Now it makes perfect sense at Cana when he said Ma li v'lach ? It was a tender question in a bond of holy love between mother and son; What is there between you and me ? Love, trust, faith until death and beyond. What can I do for you ? "

I never heard this interpretation of the phrase "Ma li v'lach?" I'd always heard it was an expression of, at best, uninvolvement ("What's it to you or me?") Can you explain this a little further?

Thanks for these good musings.

In modern Hebrew the idiomatic phrase can have a decidedly negative meaning. I was researching the Cana passage, because the common interpretations do not ring true and came across it here: Credit for the kernel must go to Michael Heiser, PhD.

While doing some reverse interlinear work a few days ago, I came across Josh 15:18. The verse concerns Caleb’s newly-won bride:

18 When she came to him, she urged him to ask her father for a field. And she got off her donkey, and Caleb said to her, �What do you want?� My interest was drawn to the question: “What do you want?” The Hebrew literally reads: “What to you?”

This is a fairly common Semiticism that I have run across a number of times before. And each time the idea pops into my head that I ought to write an article on it — since it is the idiomatic expression behind the statement/question Jesus says to his mother Mary in John 2:4. Jesus says, literally, “What to me and to you, O woman?” (“woman” is in the vocative case for direct address.)� Many readers mistake the question as a statement of irritation on Jesus’ part, and some translations don’t do much to avoid that misapprehension.

In Josh 15, Caleb is portrayed as wanting to be kind to his new bride. He is not irritated; he wants to do something for her to make her happy. This is the pretty clearly the case in some of the other 18 occurrences of the precise phrase found in Josh 15:18. Some examples (to my eye anyway) are: 2 Sam 14:5; 1 Kings 1:16; Esther 5:3. My point is that the phrase is at times clearly a gentle one.

The similar phrase (“What to me?”) also occurs in the Hebrew Bible, at times in combination with “to you,” as in John 2:4. The most generic way to capture what the full statement (“What to me to you?”) means is “what is there that concerns me and you?”� Context should steer the translator to word choices that move the translation from this neutral meaning to something that captures the situation, whether it is adversarial or congenial. There is no reason to see John’s use of this idiomatic expression as indicative of irritation, or that his mother had become insufferable to Jesus. When Jesus says to Mary, “What to me to you?”, he isn’t saying “What is it now, lady?” He’s basically asking his mother, who brings a concern to him, “What can I do for you?”

Anyway, just a bit of a hobby-horse issue for me that I periodically run into. On to weightier things.

Otherwise, if one takes the negative form of the expression, which can be very real, and goes with the adversarial view common to nonCatholics,
1. you have a Messiah irritated with his mother so much that he insults her in the presence of the servants but goes on and performs a miracle at her request anyway, with her having spoiled his opening debut. This is incongruent with the rest of scripture and the Messiah. It would fit a petulant teenager though, which Jesus never could be. If in the modern view they celebrate this as his Declaration of Independence against an imagined overbearing Jewish mother (who willingly risked being stoned to death to bear him, not to mention murdered by Herod to preserve him, and these are just what was written), then it is cognitive dissonance. He was 30, and had been holy and righteous his entire life.
2. Mary, not responding to any imagined rebuke, tells the servants to do whatever Jesus tells them. Of course the account is attributed to the Apostle John who had become Mary's son at the Lord's command and what better source for the event but a participant in the exchange ?
3. Contrast the common adversarial interpretation to the death and resurrection account of Lazarus event where he is asked to raise Lazarus and many do not really believe the dead saint is already alive. He wept and called Lazarus forth for their benefit. He always pleased our Father, who art in heaven. Blessed be His name.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Dear CynicalBear, I'm inclined to agree with a good 95% of the words you just wrote, with gusts of up to 100...and if there's a Catholic here who disagrees with any of that, let me know.

You apparently think that one FReeper ---Af-Vet-1981-- was trying to silence Christian women on this Forum, but that's not as I see it.

(I'm presuming to speak for another FReeper here, which is usually a losing proposition. However...)

My understanding of it is, that Af-Vet-1981 was challenging certain FReeper females to explain why they do not abide by the stricter interpretation of the cited Scriptures at 1 Cor. 14 and 1 Tim. 2. Some Christian groups do take a stricter or more literal approach. My own Church teaches that:

• women cannot be pastors/priests
• women should not preach at the pulpit, i.e. after the Gospel.

Other Christian churches (but not mine)go further in obedience to Paul, and teach that:

• women may not adult men, whether as teachers in a church or in a seminary; they may only teach other women, and children.

• Women are not to exercise any "headship" over men in any context (a former employer of mine, a non-Catholic Christian whom I mentioned before, said that.)

• And of course, many go in the other, more liberal direction and say that Paul's rules were totally limited to his particular place, time, and churches.

So, on these particular points, what say ye?

[Mrs. Don-o]

"But don't you think it casts a negative shadow on the papacy?"

Certainly, if you started out with an over-comprehensive idea of papal authority, which many people do.

" I mean, he's supposed to be the vicar of Christ per rcc teaching."

He is. That doesn't make him prophetic/infallible in his everyday statements, impeccable/sinless, or still less, an all-purpose oracle.

"I'd think the rcc would want that selection to be as above board as possible."

Of course.

Now we're in 100% agreement. A toast! To B.A.S.I.C.!

[imardmd1]

Of course, if you are inquiring about the plan of salvation, I, along with all of these born again Christains can surely help you or anyone who needs it.

In some ways, obtaining salvation is simple, but in other ways, not so much. Not every "Christian" delivers the Plan that works.

The relationship between the accountable individual and The Mighty God and Judge, as brokered by His Son, Jesus The Anointed One, is everything.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I suppose you men a corrupted concept of what “members of One Body” means. What does “members of One Body” mean to you?

[imardmd1]

Of course, if you are inquiring about the plan of salvation, I, along with all of these born again Christains can surely help you or anyone who needs it.

In some ways, obtaining salvation is simple, but in other ways, not so much. Not every "Christian" delivers the Plan that works.

The relationship between the accountable individual and The Mighty God and Judge, as brokered by His Son, Jesus The Anointed One, is everything.

[CynicalBear]

>>So, on these particular points, what say ye?<<

Read my post again. I just gave you my answer as was Paul's. Organized "churches" can do as they please just as the Catholic Church does. The very fact that they are man's created organizations is sign enough that they do not follow the New Testament concept of the ekklesia. The organized authoritative hierarchy of today’s churches has no basis in scripture.

[Springfield Reformer]

Jesus could nevertheless talk with Moses and Elijah on Mt. Tabor --- Peter, James, and John heard and saw them --- and Jesus refer to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as "living."

Jesus is God.  He can talk to whomever He wishes.  That doesn't set the model for us.

Also, with respect to Elijah, he was caught up into heaven without dying, IIRC.  We also know there was a supernatural squabble over the body of Moses.  It is conceivable there was a resurrection involved here.  Again, too speculative for my tastes, but of all the men chosen to be in a vision, these two are definitely outliers from the normal human death experience.  Enoch would be another.  

And as I have stated previously, when Jesus refers to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as "living," it is understood as looking forward to the resurrection, not any intermediate state.  I respect you greatly, but I do not think you've made out a winning case for some mode of human living that does not involve either our natural body or our resurrected body.  In which case, it is still proper, as Paul said, to speak of the dead in Christ, which must include Mary, barring any God-breathed confirmation of exceptional circumstances.

Peace,

SR

[CynicalBear]

>>What does “members of One Body” mean to you?<<

All true believers who rely on Christ alone by faith alone are members of the one body of Christ, part of the ekklesia. As we find in Revelation the membership in some local or regional organization is no assurance of membership of that ekklesia. The Lambs Book of Life has all the names of the saints of God recorded from Adam till the end of time. The word ekklesia in the New Testament never referred to some single "denomination" or organization with some structured hierarchy. In every instance it referred to a local meeting of those who put their trust in Jesus alone for their salvation. The ekklesia (those called out by God) have only one leader and that is Christ as their High Priest.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thanks for a clearly worded question!

"I take it then, that nuns CANNOT teach men anything or tell them anything, nor be in ANY position of authority over any man..."

Incorrect. Nuns can certainly teach men. There are nuns who are seminary professors; officers of, e.g., the Catholic Theological Society of America (academic theologians), licentiates of Pontifical Institutes, and even Doctors of the Church,i.e. recognized as major contributors to Catholic thought, such as St. Catherine of Siena, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Therese of Lisieux, and St. Hildegard of Bingen.

As for positions of authority, women can hold what you might call "unordained" authority, but nor as members of a priestly hierarchy. For instance, a woman may be:

• a member of a Pontifical Institute (but not a Cardinal),
• a Diocesan Chancellor (but not a bishop),
• a Pastoral Administrator (but not a pastor),
• a Canonical judge (but not a Judicial Vicar). In other words, a woman can hold any position of leadership and authority which does not require priestly ordination.

It ordinarily doesn't require you to be a nun, either.

That doesn't even mention the hundreds of eminent positions a Catholic woman have long held within Catholic institutions, not directly connected to the hierarchy: College or University President, Hospital/MedCenter CEO, Executive Director of a huge Church-related charity or mission outreach, etc. A Catholic woman doesn't require the OK of a man to become founder-director of a media empire -- Mother Angelica didn't need permission from the U.S. Bishops to launch the Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN)! As Dorothy Day said, "You don't need permission to perform the Works of Mercy."

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thanks for the research. I'm going to have to take time to look into that more carefully.

On another topic: you referred to yourself once as a "Jewish Apostle" (I think.) Are you a Catholic? A Hebrew Catholic? Or something else? How does that work? (Obviously I'm confused.)

[metmom]

Ah, so the admonition that women remain silent and not teach men is for non-Catholic women only it seems.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I am not trying to be difficult here. I am actually trying to understand your beliefs. For instance: Do you think it’s OK for a woman to be a pastor, or to preach from the pulpit?