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.

[annalex]

You want to delete that chapter of John then?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Rather, I would say that being incorporated into Christ is exactly what is meant by a saving Faith.”

You cannot be saved without also having been incorported into the Body of Christ.
The Holy Spirit does this.
You cannot be incorporated into the Body of Christ without first entrusting yourself to Christ’s sacrifice alone to pay for your sins and to receive eternal life.

[annalex]

the Protestant brethren's interpretations of Scriptures related to the Church, the Eucharist, and Mary, aim not to explain them, but to explain them away.

That is the salient point. Five centuries on, the wobbly edifice of Protestantism has bred an artificial selection of people who probably earnestly believe that the fast-forwarding, the obfuscation and the "hermeneutics" is the only way to read the Bible. I am not imputing "malice, laziness or dishonesty" into anyone in particular, certainly not this century. Al I see today in that world is victims.

[CynicalBear]

>>YES!! Agreement at last. Happy Dance!<<

Keep in mind that He also used Judas, Herod, Pharaoh, and many others to His purposes.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“I think that American catholics have little in common with catholics in Mexico, central and South America, for instance. In the Philippines, it appears to me, that on the surface, most of them are Catholics, but below the surface, they are animists, very superstitious, and worshipping spirits.”

Wait. Mark, you said you thought they had little in common?

Much of modern catholicism involves the syncretism from pagan religions just like this. Rome approves and incorporates these into practice... eventually backfilling from the Scriptures to justify and making them dogma.

All of this chips away and covers the “simplicity of the Gospel.” At some point, those who believe everything that contradicts the Gospel have been inoculated against saving faith.

[Springfield Reformer]

They say the "unchangeable Word of God" re the OT prohibition of relations between men or between women, has the same status as the "unchangeable Word of God" re the OT prohibition of fabrics mixing different kinds of fibers and the OT law that witchcraft was punishable by death (Exodus 22:18, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.")--- cultic and cultural rules considered null in the NT.
They would say further that the words which people mistakenly interpret as "homosexual" in the NT, "malakoi" and "arsnokoitai", in fact referred not to homosexuals in general, nor to gay married people (which did not exist at that time), but to pederasts, rent-boys and cult prostitutes. Link Here

Thus they would argue that it is we (you and I) who are holding to age-old human bigotry, traditions and customs and not the unchangeable word of God from the unchangeable God. They would urge us to stop basing our interpretations on mere human biases and rules, and instead search deeper in to the language of Scripture itself to determine whether Scripture condemns gay marriage.

In other words, they would say that it is the "traditional marriage" people who ware too dependent on "tradition." And as for themselves? Ah! They diligently search the Word of God alone to see that for ALL married couples (including themselves), may do what comes naturally (to them) by mutual consent in their marriage bed - which is "honorable in ALL and UNDEFILED" - and it is between themselves and God.

I know how I would refute this. But I'm interested in how you would. Your thoughts?

If you don't mind me poking my nose in, I have some info that can help with that.

First, the problem with divergent interpretations is rooted in our sin natures, not Scripture.  And like certain forms of sin, the errors of an individual are often quite transparent to an outside observer.  If someone refuses to use a disciplined approach to studying Scripture, those errors can and will be exposed.  I know some here have trouble with the idea of a systematic hermeneutic, but it is one of the best tools we have for getting at the true meaning of the Biblical text despite our personal biases.  And once we know what it actually says, we are still reliant on the Holy Spirit to use that knowledge according to the will of God.  The Pharisees' greatest condemnation no doubt lies not in their ignorance of truth, but in the truth they understood, and flatly rejected.  So hermeneutics by itself is not sufficient, but it is a necessary prerequisite to understanding.

This is how it is with the argument about homosexuality supposedly being rejected by Paul only insofar as it was part of the idolatrous pagan temple service.  It does not require any sacred tradition supplemental to Scripture to realize this entire argument is founded on false history and poorly executed hermeneutics.  I offer to you both this wonderful, if rather long article that utterly dismantles the temple prostitute argument, and does so with standard tools of historical and textual analysis available to anyone willing to do the work:

http://www.robgagnon.net/responsetorogers2.htm

As for the OT versus NT argument, the essential principle for Christians is that the moral law predates the law of Moses.  Murder was wrong in the day of Cain and Abel before it was ever codified by Moses.  Jesus' argument for permanent, heterosexual marriage goes back to the divine paradigm set by God in Adam and Eve, and thus also predates Moses. All those laws pertaining only to the Mosaic covenant with Israel, the dietary and fabric laws, the priestly service, and such, have been displaced by the New Covenant, according to pretty much the whole book of Hebrews, and elsewhere as well.  But all of those pre-Mosaic moral laws, grounded as they were in the eternal law of divine love, were restated in the NT, not as a means to salvation, but as instruction in righteousness.  So the moral law was repurposed, but not repealed. Therefore, the argument for a complete break between the OT and the NT with respect to the moral code fails entirely on a textual basis, with no necessary reference to an external sacred tradition.

Peace,

SR

[CynicalBear]

I have no problem with that chapter of John. It’s the Catholics that switch from literal to spiritual and back again.

[annalex]

Literal is spiritual so far as the Holy Eucharist is concerned.

[Mrs. Don-o]

So it's faith, incorporation into Christ, and vice versa.

Amen, AMPU!

[Mrs. Don-o]

True. He even uses you and me.

[Springfield Reformer]

Thank you for your kindly and cost-effective advice.  I went back and read the post of mine to which you were responding, and could find nothing in it that attributed motive. The problem I stated is still the one I see. A disciplined hermeneutic that filters out personal biases and uses the best available tools for study is, as I see it, a matter of duty, especially for those who aspire to teach the body of Christ.  Now do I always live up to that standard myself?  Nope.  I get lazy and make mistakes.  Being mortal, and a sinner, that sort of thing can happen.  But when I make such mistakes, there is someone out there ready to hold me accountable, and that is as it should be. Accountability is a good thing.

As for the "Catholic hermeneutic" I am poking fun at, it is based on experienced formed here and elsewhere that making good use of context and linguistics is a problem.  I took advantage of the error presented to illustrate the problem.  That's all.  I do not attribute motive.  Though I do blame the emperor-driven doctrinal discovery model for the diminished value of context in the RC hermeneutic, at least as it is represented here.  We Biblicists go to the Bible to find out what to believe, so we have no choice but to make good and careful use of context, linguistics, etc.  Whereas the RC rank and file has been told in advance by the Roman oracle what the text should say, so that's what you look for, what you are obligated to find, however weak the evidence.  Anyone can be misled by confirmation bias.  But in the Roman system it's baked in to the model.  That's a problem.

Peace,

SR

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“So it’s faith, incorporation into Christ, and vice versa.”

Afraid you’ve thrown me off with the last “and vice versa.” part.

Until you clarify what that means, all I can tell you is that the Scriptures tell us that salvation comes from entrusting ourselves to Him alone for salvation.

As we do this, the Spirit seals us, baptizes us into His Body and Bride, we have eternal life from that moment, we have assurance of our salvation, we now have the life of Christ in us, instead of just the old Adamic life.

In no way do we become part of the Body of Christ before entrusting ourselves to Him alone.

Best,
ampu

[Elsie]

What I think is strange, is that the Iglesia Ni Cristo and the catholics hate each other, but their doctrines are virtually identical and both are very superstitious.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_That_Be_Your_Last_Battlefield

[Elsie]

I have asked both sides why the animosity, but no one could tell me why.

At least the Hatfield's and the McCoy's KNOW!

[Elsie]

From my point of view, for instance, it always seems like the Protestant brethren's interpretations of Scriptures related to the Church, the Eucharist, and Mary, aim not to explain them, but to explain them away.

Stand somewhere else and look at it.

[Elsie]

Literal is spiritual so far as the Holy Eucharist is concerned.

[boatbums]

Thank you for your comments. They spell out exactly what is the basis for refuting those who would challenge God’s moral laws for humanity. I’ve got errands to run with Mom today so will have time later this evening to comment further.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I add my thanks to Springfield Reformer for his thoughts AND his link. There's a lot to read there, and I may get to it it tonight. No, tomorrow, I'm out tonight.

This is of great interest to me, and it appears to be right on the money.

[Syncro]

The Catholic Bible is the same today as it was two thousand years ago.

Perhaps you missed post #5431 that shows that the Vulgate is error ridden but sanctioned by Catholicism.

And that happened much less than 2,000 years ago.

An interesting quote from that post:

Pope Gregory the Great said that unbaptized babies go straight to hell and suffer there for all of eternity

I imagine that refers to the Catholic ritual of sprinkling babies soon after birth.

So to him people that convert to Catholicism after they have left the "baby" stage of their life will go to hell too.

[terycarl]

sometimes well, sometimes not so well...a meaningless analogy. This is my body...on the other hand, is a direct and meaningful statement...