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.

[Springfield Reformer]

Hermeneutics are not mysterious. They are accessible to anyone who is willing to put in the effort (as we are commanded) to learn what God’s Word means.

Indeed, the rant against hermeneutics is one of the strangest episodes I've ever witnessed here.  Not THE strangest.  This is FR after all.  But strange nonetheless.  Hermeneutics is just the science/art of figuring out what a text means.  We use hermeneutical techniques every time we read an FR post.  The Supreme Court is a merry band of interpreters all trying to apply their preferred hermeneutic to the text of the Constitution.  You can critique them for the defects of their respective hermeneutic techniques, but they have no choice but to try and interpret what they are reading.  It's how all reading happens.  The difference comes in being able to back away from personal biases and use a consistent method of interpretation that forces one to be honest with the text.  In constitutional law that would be the conflict between the so-called living Constitution versus original intent versus strict constructionism, etc.

Likewise, one can come to any text with prejudices.  If the object is to find out what was really said by the author, one needs a way to put those prejudices in perspective.  We can never be entirely objective, and the first rule of hermeneutics is to admit that.  Once we know there are mines in the ground, we can try to detect them before they detonate.  But going in guns a-blazing as if we have a perfect, automatic knowledge of whatever we read is an invitation to disaster.  So we set ourselves some rules.  We ask questions.  When was it written.  Why? Who was the author?  Who is the audience?  What is the general subject matter.  What is the operating vocabulary of that period.  What does the grammar tell us.  What does the history tell us.  What do other documents from the same time period bearing on the same subject tell us. Etc. Etc. Etc.  

Yes, I know that sounds like a lot of work, and it is, but the only reason for avoiding it is an unfailing belief in subjective autonomy (self as pope).  It's true.  Rejection of objective methods for understanding textual authorities lead to the opposite standard, despotic subjectivism, which in turn is the root of moral relativism.  This is exactly where the "living Constitution" methodology (if it can be called that) resides.  We come to the text as Marxists, and reinvent the meaning according to Marx, or we come to the text as anarchists or hedonists or whatever, and reinvent the text accordingly.  We do so supposedly in the name of "keeping up with social evolution," but really its nothing but lawlessness, which is devolution.

Peace,

SR

[ealgeone]

>" 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.

So how does your statement square away with this?

Pope Boniface VIII, in his Bull Unam Sanctum (1302), spelled out the doctrine of the necessity of the Church for salvation and with it the necessity of submission to the Roman Pontiff. Regarding the primacy of authority of Peter and his successors he stated:

But this authority, although it is given to man and is exercised by man, is not human, but rather divine, and has been given by the divine Word to Peter himself and to his successors in him, whom the Lord acknowledged an established rock, when he said to Peter himself: Whatsoever you shall bind etc. [Matt. 16:19]. Therefore, whosoever resists this power so ordained by God, resists the order of God [cf. Rom. 13:2] ... Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.

If, the rcc claim regarding Matt 16:19 is true, I don't see any limitations about speaking ex-cathedra in that verse. I also don't see those limitations in the Unam Sanctum from Boniface either.

It sounds like catholicism tries to have it both ways. He's infallible, but he's not infallible....it all depends.

That doesn't square away with Matt 16 and what Boniface is saying.

Would love to hear your thoughts on this.

[CynicalBear]

>>Do you think it’s OK for a woman to be a pastor, or to preach from the pulpit?<<

LOL Once again you raise the concept of some organizational hierarchical structure. Paul's comments clearly say that a woman should not exert spiritual authority over a man. As I showed there are numerous examples in scripture of women being teachers and defenders of the faith. If your concept of "pastor" is that the person in that position is somehow in authority over others than a woman should not hold that position.

The other inherent attitude in this "authority" thing is that no where does Paul ascribe any of those position as pertinent to our salvation. If a person is hung up on the legalistic organization of some hierarchical structure their focus is certainly not on what is required for salvation.

[metmom]

For instance: Do you think it’s OK for a woman to be a pastor, or to preach from the pulpit?

Scripture is clear about women in leadership positions in the church. So I don't think women should be pastors in authority. I do know of women who have been credentialed as pastors for the sole purpose of visitation in hospitals for women patients. Sometimes that's a lot less awkward than having a man do it.

And I don't think that precludes women from speaking in the pulpit. If a church has a missionary couple in sharing what they are doing, I see no reason that the woman can't expound on that.

However, preaching the gospel to others is NOT prohibited by any means, neither is prophecy.

Proverbs 31 describes a woman or noble character, one who certainly can hold her own and make wise decisions of her own.

[Kackikat]

The first Evangelists proclaiming the good news of Jesus resurrection were women. When they left the empty tomb...”He is Risen”.

[metmom]

Good point.

God gave women that honor.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Jesus refers to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as "living," but He actually converses with Moses and Elijah at Mt. Tabor, which the Apostles both saw and heard.

Why do you say Jesus "doesn't set the model for us"? I've actually never heard a Christian say such a thing before.

I surely agree that it is an unnatural thing for a human being, created by God as a composite creature with both spiritual and physical components, to exist like a bodiless entity, and such a situation could only be temporary. But so it is, until the resurrection of the body.

[Elsie]

I think only God can answer that question in any comprehensive way.

Then just WHY was it written into the Scriptures that you Catholics gave us?

---

(We have the Osteen "I don't know" all over another thread on FR.)

[Elsie]

Dogmas, properly called such, are very few and very firm.

Yet they seem tom be SO hard to put into practice.

[Elsie]

Please show where any Protestant has said that

Do you REALLY expect Bafflegab to answer this?

[Elsie]

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

How DARE you try to use Scripture as a Standard for the TRUE church!

---

1 Timothy 3:2
An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach...

[Elsie]

Do you think it’s OK for a woman to be a pastor, or to preach from the pulpit?

Anna was a prophetess...

[Elsie]

I surely agree that it is an unnatural thing for a human being, created by God as a composite creature with both spiritual and physical components, to exist like a bodiless entity, and such a situation could only be temporary. But so it is, until the resurrection of the body.

Uh; is it just me; but do others think this sounds quite un-Catholic like?

[Springfield Reformer]

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

MD: Why do you say Jesus "doesn't set the model for us"? I've actually never heard a Christian say such a thing before.

Um, that's because that's not what I actually said.  See the top line above. "That" doesn't refer to Jesus as a general role model, it refers to Him having conversations with whoever He wants based on His divine will and power.  So you probably have heard other Christians say this before, just not with an opening for ambiguity like I gave you. :) Ordinarily, the expression would be "I'm not God, so I can't do that, just because God can."  That's all.    It's like, God created the universe, now you go out and do likewise.  Um, not going to happen.  That's not a pattern I could follow even if I totally wanted to.  I'm just a pesky mortal.  Can barely tie my own shoes let alone aspire to things so far above me.  See what I'm saying? Sorry if there was any confusion. Be assured, that in every respect where I can, as a believer, be an imitator of Christ, that is exactly what I aspire to.

Jesus refers to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as "living," but He actually converses with Moses and Elijah at Mt. Tabor, which the Apostles both saw and heard.

I am not denying they saw and heard Moses and Elijah.  I am saying Elijah never died, so he doesn't help your case for the disembodied afterlife theory. They were seeing, in all likelihood (yep, that's a hedge-word) , Elijah's not yet dead pre-resurrection human body.  As for Moses, his body was gathered up by the angel, and there may have been a resurrection of sorts for him too. We know resurrections occurred in the OT, but they were not of the order of the spiritual body spoken of by Paul.  More like Lazarus.  All highly speculative, and I am glad to admit that.  But it doesn't create a presumption favoring the disembodied afterlife you propose.  

Don't misunderstand me here.  I'm not dogmatic about soul sleep.  I can see some good arguments for it, and I don't see any Scriptural authority for assuming disembodied consciousness as a general principle.  Moses and Elijah were in a class by themselves.  How God brought them to the mount of transfiguration is not explained.  And as I noted above, there are alternate explanations that are at least as good as, and probably better than, the disembodiment theory.

So while I often wonder how my deceased family members are experiencing their cessation from this life, as well as all the people of God presently dead in Christ, I don't feel it's my place to go beyond what is written.  Paul tells us there is such a thing as the dead in Christ.  That is what is written. Let others speculate.  Like CS Lewis says, it isn't the things in Scripture I don't understand that bother me; it's the things I do understand.

Peace,

SR

[Syncro]

Like Chuck was wont to say:

"Well explain it to you on the way up"

Watch for the 4 grader come to my rescue and say it's won't not wont

[Mrs. Don-o]

I'd asked you for an explanation of the Church as members of the Body of Christ, and you sent ---thank you --- this succinct statement about "ekklesia." You didn't say much about "Body of Christ". But OK, your "ekklesia" focus has a certain coherence, and can certainly be enriched by a fuller explanation, leading to proper understanding.

"All true believers who rely on Christ alone by faith alone are members of the one body of Christ, part of the ekklesia."

And one could ask, Did Abraham Isaac, and Jacob, ever say they "relied on Christ alone"?

So I could agree with you only if we agree that this "in Christ alone" may be implicit in people who actually do not confess Christ with their lips. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob --- yes, even Adam and Eve --- hoped, but did not necessarily understand or know in Whom they hoped, Jesus Christ Our Lord.

So an implicit hope, even, is seen as apart of a saving faith.

Since St. James says we are NOT saved by "faith alone" and St. Paul says that if you had faith such as to move mountains, and had not love, you are nothing.

So this "faith" --- is it "faith alone"? If it is to be defined as a "living faith," which would include hope, and love, and good deeds, just as Paul and James define it, then --- OK, if it's "living faith," we're in agreement again.

"The ekklesia (those called out by God) have only one leader and that is Christ as their High Priest."

Well, yes. But even here, it's true only if you have a rather fuller understanding. In both the OT and the NT, God appointed priests, patriarchs and kings to lead and shepherd His people. Even though we have only one Leader, who is Jesus our High priest, He has never ceased to provide these earthly leaders, teaches and shepherds for us in every age:

Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Matthew 28:20
teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Acts 13:1
Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

1 Corinthians 12:28
And God hath appointed some in the church, first as apostles, secondarily as prophets, thirdly as teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues."

These are obviously not invisible teachers and invisible governments. These are visible ones, appointed by God in the Church. That entails a certain administration, a certain structure, an certain visible, institutional aspect of Church we can't really refuse to acknowledge. It's Biblical.

2 Timothy 1:11
"...whereunto I [Paul] am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles."

Titus 1:5
"For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee."

Something to think about.

However, I'd asked what "members of One Body" as in "Body of Christ" means to you. You answered mostly about the idea of "ekklesia," but did not relate quite how this is the Body of Christ, that is, with many different members cooperating together to perform different functions, that is, with an essential, close, living unity in which they depend upon one another. Much like eyes and ears hands and feet and so forth. I would like to hear more about that.

[Syncro]

Oops whoops lol We’ll...

[Mrs. Don-o]

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

You should ask AF VET.

That doesn't seem to be quite "it," though it's for him and you to sort it out.

It seems (to unworthy me) that what he's hoping for from you is not silence, but an explanation.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Perhaps you didn't read what I sent a whole back at #5141 To summarize, to fail to join, or fail to remain in, the Catholic Church, is grave matter, since God wills us to be members of the Church he built, under Peter the Chief Shepherd and his successors. However it cannot be said to be a mortal sin if you are ignorant of the fact that God wills you to be in this Church.

You must make a distinction between "grave matter" (objective) and "mortal sin" (something you knew and intended in a deliberate sense; what you are subjectively answerable for).

[Vatican II Lumen Gentium, para 14]
"He [Jesus Christ] Himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it."

[Mrs. Don-o]

You do seem to assert a "church" which is formless, featureless, structureless, powerless, and clueless. This concept of "church" does not seem to add up to the Church we see growing in the NT, which is visible, has distinct features, has an incipient structure, has power, has the authority to teach, and he authority to expel those who teach wrongly.