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.

[BlueDragon]

OK so how is the “Catholic Bible” different from 2000 years ago?

alex -- I just showed you how, providing links which go into close detail.

It is unavoidable that issues of 'canon' (what books rightly comprise the canon, and what books do not) comes into play.

Yet you are still saying there has been "no difference for 2000 years?"

Obviously -- you must still be ignoring the evidence which strongly indicates the contrary, but doing so (as far as I can tell) by alluding to what accuracy of textual details within the various books which make up the "Bible" that there is...

If you insist now upon examination of texts themselves (as for theologically significant "change") we could talk about how the RCC corrupted Genesis 3:15, changing the gender there, of who it is that is said will bruise (or harm) the head of the serpent, and the serpent bruise the heel thereof -- of that person, that "seed" as it were. It is written that this seed is a "he", not a "she", and nor will it be "she" (as in Eve, or Mary either). But check out how those within the RCC changed the Latin texts to say "she", and how the USCCB puts it as;

They will strike at your head,

while you strike at their heel.

In all of the Greek texts, and in the oldest Latin also, it is not written as "they" will strike, and "their" heel will be stricken, but the U.S. [Roman] Catholic bishops have changed the text itself from "how it was 2000 years ago" with their footnotes there providing their excuses for having tampered with and introduced confusion into the text itself, far beyond things being simply a matter of honest & best translation choice.

Or we could talk about how Jerome wrote what translates into English as "do penance" suggesting there acts of contrition which those of Rome then began to prescribe as additional "works" one must do in order to find the grace and forgiveness of God --- when originally (as would translate) the word was more simply --- repentance, without all the later-on freighted innuendo.

[Elsie]

By about 4 century the canon was formed

What TOOK so long?

[Elsie]

By about 4 century the canon was formed

What TOOK so long?

---

Because you-all Protestants invented the idiotic idea that the faith comes from scripture alone,

This, coming from someone who has been taught that the bible only is NOT enough?

Who dropped the ball in putting it all together?

[Elsie]

OK so how is the “Catholic Bible” different from 2000 years ago?

It's been SHOWN in this thread.

GO READ IT!

[Elsie]

Do you have a zimmer?

[BlueDragon]

Do you have a zimmer?

No, but I do have a [inexpensive?] stainless steel bar of sorts bolted/screwed on to the left fibula, with an additional long screw which goes right through the fibula and into the top-most "ankle bone".

In my case, the ankle bone is connected to the leg bone.

If I could have fixed it myself with duct tape, I would have.

[Religion Moderator]

“I merely pointed out that I had chosen one route and he had chosen another.”

If that would have been the comment you posted it would not have been commented upon by the RM.

This was your original post which brought on a response from here.

“I just chose the route that Christ established and you didn't”

That's personal and mindreading because it's an opinion stated as fact that the poster didn't chose the route Christ established and was pointed directly to that particular poster.

If you have any more issues about this, please use “private reply” so the thread will not be further brought off track.

Discuss the issues all you want but do not make it personal. Mindreading is making it personal.

[BlueDragon]

As you had quoted myself;

[he was] "...instead speaking about what 'Rome' teaches that is addition to scripture, as in "extra-biblical", not in the bible, etc."

"I know that this is the Protestant mantra, but this is not the case."

In the course of conversation here, you had provided previous reply which unavoidably encompassed issues in regard to biblical canon, rather than "teachings" as it were, and you also were the one who brought that 'canon' aspect into the conversation...

I'm just not interested in assisting in this squirming away from your own comments which you are now engaging in, switching suddenly from one aspect to another -- while arguing against some other position or sense of what was being discussed. That you do this sort of thing constantly, is infuriating.

Facts of history (as I have shown but a few) have refuted the claim of yours which was highlighted.

The "Catholic Bible" has indeed changed in the last two thousand years -- in eventually having adopted the so-called (OT) deuterocanon as being equal to the "protocanon" (the rest of the "Hebrew Bible").

But now --- without having made any admission to this, the timeline is now changed by yourself to the 4th century. Yet going by Athanasius alone it would be better to take it to the 5th century...and as in the links which I provided, it can be seen that these additional writings were not entirely accepted by the Church as being anything more than "ecclesiastical writings" not fully on par with the rest of Scripture.

As I made note of also --- full acceptance was not even in existence in the course of voting upon the issue at the Council of Trent.

Were the ones who voted against full and indiscriminate inclusion of those writings; just so many more ignoramuses to be added to the list which includes Melito, Tertullian, Cyril of Jerusalem and Ephiphanius, (those two having been declared "saints"), Athanasius & Jerome also, for all those men simply must have been ignorant -- if what you say here now in the 21 century is true in the senses which you have apparently intended for your claims to apply.

How many "saints" must be set aside and ignored in order to provide room for such statements as;

There was, of course, textual work done by linguists, and translations were done but that is the same Catholic Bible since then. But the books of the Bible have not changed since John the Evangelist finished his Apocalypse, so that is, roughly, 2000 years.

The above statement of yours is not precisely germane to the previous closer examination of one of your (many) claims, and comes across as a moving of the goalposts which by some bizarre form of reasoning must include assumption that deuterocanon, was from the earliest beginnings of "the Church" regarded as "bible" (truly Scripture).

Again, excerpt from The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha

Part 3: From Jerome to the Reformation between marked footnotes #128 & #129

Cajetan wrote a commentary on all the canonical books of the Old Testament which he dedicated to the pope. He stated that the books of the Apocrypha were not canonical in the strict sense, explaining that there were two concepts of the term 'canonical' as it applied to the Old Testament. He gave the following counsel on how to properly interpret the decrees of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage under Augustine:

Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.

Was Catejan an imbecile also -- who did not "know" that the so-called deuterocanon was actually canonical, and always had been? I take it that one (Catejan) hasn't been "sainted" quite yet...so at least there is one who disputes your here claims, that is not a "saint", but whom you have along with a gathering of saints (by default) placed in category of ignoramus.

You seek to add generalized broadly sweeping accusation which is your own mere opinion (and that has been shown to be in error previously also)?

Because you-all Protestants invented the idiotic idea that the faith comes from scripture alone

Excuse me, but the early church "fathers" very much relied upon Scripture foremost. Athanasius did, here again as provided (with hyper-link to source) just previously, to which I will now add emphasis for portion;

6. These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me

Athanasius is not the only one whom himself relied most chiefly upon Scripture, regarding that alone for "doctrines of godliness". Those of and within "the Church" could well enough err --- and he knew it, for he had to oppose them.

No one can argue from their own "ecclesiastical authority" if that not be most firmly and most well grounded in Scripture. Facing difficulties and theological dispute --- that "saint" turned to the Scriptures. Athanasius contra mundus, et mundum contra Athanasium or "While the world is set against Athanasius, Athanasius is equally set against the world." Luther was a distant echo of those who went before him, combating error and yes, even "heresy" within the Church.

"...and ignore half of the content of the Gospels,"

in interpretation --- these so called "protestants" did not "ignore half of the Gospels", most particularly when the focus is upon the Reformers, and those theologians taken in aggregate, the truth of things being discernible after some sifting of those individuals writings, and study of early Church "fathers" (ECF's) in comparison to RCC practices and commonly held views of Reformation era.

"...you have that perception of the world where "extra-biblical" has some special meaning that you put in it."

Theological principles and concepts either have solid foundational support in Scripture -- or "they" don't.

I am not playing your games.

But I've had to play yours, and do all the work while I was at it!

You've just lost the discussion/debate on just about each and every thing which you yourself said, anyway.

But now want me to play along with your own "game playing", while we all ignore how the RCC, by it's own admission teaches things which have no biblical foundation, such as the Assumption of Mary, which could be tolerable...but to that is added the Marionist "Immaculate Conception" -- which has little to nothing to do with the conception of Jesus himself, other than be a dogma which arose from gnosticism -- and the fears of men, namely that the Holy Lord could not have been born into what is said to be "sinful flesh" without being impossibly contaminated. To combat that worry, this "Immaculate" and "sinlessness" of Christ was extended to Mary herself -- from her own birth.

That is entirely "extra-biblical", and as I mentioned already and will again -- the RCC admits to that condition of that particular dogma.

[Religion Moderator]

The admonishment to terycarl had nothing to do with whether or not anyone was offended.

These are the rules for open threads on the Religion Forum, also found on my profile page which can be accessed by clicking on my name at the bottom of this post:

Open threads are in a town square format.

Antagonism though not encouraged, should be expected

Posters may argue for or against beliefs, deities, religious authorities, etc. They may tear down other’s beliefs. They may ridicule. “Open” RF debate is often contentious.

It requires thick skin. A poster must be able to make his points while standing his ground, suffering adverse remarks about his beliefs - or letting them roll off his back.

Members of religions which are as much culture as belief sometimes take religious debate personally. If you keep getting your feelings hurt because other posters ridicule or disapprove or hate what you hold dear, then you are too thin-skinned to be involved in “open” RF debate. You should IGNORE “open” RF threads altogether and instead post to RF threads labeled “prayer” “devotional” “caucus” or “ecumenical.”

Part of the RM duties is to read threads to make sure they don't get out of hand with rule breaking.

[af_vet_1981]

Luther was a distant echo of those who went before him, combating error and yes, even "heresy" within the Church.

You have appealed to Luther, who viciously hated the Jews and published a seven point plan for their destruction. His last known letter(s) to his wife before he died told of scheming to harm some poor Jewish souls some other Gentile prince was giving refuge. His work was put on display by the Nazis and they implemented all his recommendations with zeal. He was a false apostle and you've just lost the discussion/debate by appealing to him.

[BlueDragon]

You have appealed to Luther

Oh puh-leaze. I made nothing much of "appeal" to Luther, for I scarcely made mention of him.

Yet regardless of what he may have gotten quite wrong, he was not "inventing" the principle of sola scriptura as I provided some evidence towards.

Care to deal with that, rather than this shooting-of-the-messenger business?

It seems to me that your own position is to find some flaw in regards to Martin Luther to then discount everything else he went into at some length, to now transport whatever dismissive negativity which could be ginned up against Luther ---> to now apply to myself here?

I have documented well enough my own contentions.

There are more than a few ECF's which I did appeal to.

So perhaps you'd care to answer or address one question, as demonstrated was left begging;

Was Catejan an imbecile also, along with the ECF's which I "had appealed to" that clearly excluded the so-called deuterocanon from OT canon proper?

[af_vet_1981]

Oh puh-leaze. I made nothing much of "appeal" to Luther, for I scarcely made mention of him. Yet regardless of what he may have gotten quite wrong, he was not "inventing" the principle of sola scriptura as I provided some evidence towards. Care to deal with that, rather than this shooting-of-the-messenger business? It seems to me that your own position is to find some flaw in regards to Martin Luther to then discount everything else he went into at some length, to now transport whatever dismissive negativity which could be ginned up against Luther ---> to now apply to myself here? I have documented well enough my own contentions. There are more than a few ECF's which I did appeal to. So perhaps you'd care to answer or address one question, as demonstrated was left begging; Was Catejan an imbecile also, along with the ECF's which I "had appealed to" that clearly excluded the so-called deuterocanon from OT canon proper?

Luther is an unforced error which renders the spiritual and doctrinal succession illegitimate, and I have not even put the Anabaptists on the stand yet.

I'll see what I can find on Catejan to help. In the meantime I leave you with Akin for your consideration, displaying only the introduction of sorts, trusting you will progress onward to the period you are most interested. However, the foundation is fundamental, so to speak. DEFENDING THE DEUTEROCANONICALS
James Akin

When Catholics and Protestants talk about "the Bible," the two groups actually have two different books in mind. In the sixteenth century, the Protestant Reformers removed a large section of the Old Testament that was not compatible with their theology. They charged that these writings were not inspired Scripture and branded them with the pejorative title "Apocrypha."

Catholics refer to them as the "deuterocanonical" books (since they were disputed by a few early authors and their canonicity was established later than the rest), while the rest are known as the "protocanonical" books (since their canonicity was established first).

Following the Protestant attack on the integrity of the Bible, the Catholic Church infallibly reaffirmed the divine inspiration of the deuterocanonical books at the Council of Trent in 1546. In doing this, it reaffirmed what had been believed since the time of Christ.

Who Compiled the Old Testament?

The Church does not deny that there are ancient writings which are "apocryphal." During the early Christian era, there were scores of manuscripts which purported to be Holy Scripture but were not. Many have survived to the present day, like the Apocalypse of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas, which all Christian churches regard as spurious writings that don't belong in Scripture.

During the first century, the Jews disagreed as to what constituted the canon of Scripture. In fact, there were a large number of different canons in use, including the growing canon used by Christians. In order to combat the spreading Christian cult, rabbis met at the city of Jamnia or Javneh in A.D. 90 to determine which books were truly the Word of God. They pronounced many books, including the Gospels, to be unfit as scriptures. This canon also excluded seven books (Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel) that Christians considered part of the Old Testament.

The group of Jews which met at Javneh became the dominant group for later Jewish history, and today most Jews accept the canon of Javneh. However, some Jews, such as those from Ethiopia, follow a different canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).

Needless to say, the Church disregarded the results of Javneh. First, a Jewish council after the time of Christ is not binding on the followers of Christ. Second, Javneh rejected precisely those documents which are foundational for the Christian Church—the Gospels and the other documents of the New Testament. Third, by rejecting the deuterocanonicals, Javneh rejected books which had been used by Jesus and the apostles and which were in the edition of the Bible that the apostles used in everyday life—the Septuagint.

[BlueDragon]

Luther is an unforced error which renders the spiritual and doctrinal succession illegitimate,

No thanks.

I don't rely upon Luther for either of those two things.

Now will you answer the question, and/or deal with what else I have brought over a span of a few comments here, where I provided links which firmly establish my contentions --- or will you continue revert to attempting to drown all of that out?

First things, first.

Deal with it, or get lost.

An unclosed link to the modern-day RC apologist Jimmy Akin rather mindlessly asserting "Septuagint" as basis for canon is weak, man... weak.

If that's all you've got, it would be better to just stay home.

(just stay on the porch...as that saying goes)

[Mark17]

Do you have a zimmer?

I thought you said your dog doesn't bite.

It's not my dog.

[Mark17]

It requires thick skin. A poster must be able to make his points while standing his ground, suffering adverse remarks about his beliefs - or letting them roll off his back.

Yep, like water off a duck's back.

[Elsie]

ouch!

[daniel1212]

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.

Actually, from what i found there are critical differences, though both operate out of the cultic sola ecclesia model with an autocratic pope figure.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iglesia_ni_Cristo

Felix Manalo is said to be the restorer of the church of Christ, and "God's last messenger.." INC says that Manalo is the "angel from the east", mentioned in Revelation 7:1–3 who started the INC at the same time that World War I broke out. ..Felix Manalo is from the Philippines, which they say is in the ‘center’ of the Far East.[50] The ‘four winds’ in Revelation 7:1-3, they say refers to World War I and the four angels are the four leaders known as the big four (Woodrow Wilson, Lloyd George, Georges Clemenceau, and Vittorio Orlando) who they say worked on the prevention of the war.

As the one who established the INC, Manalo was the chief administrator, chief theologian and spiritual leader of the church.[11] As such, he was the ultimate authority in all aspects of the church, and effectively "the foremost Biblical authority for all humanity and the divinely designated leader of a reestablished church of Christ in the modern world."

Thus we have a pope, not a real Protestant/evangelical.

The Iglesia ni Cristo deems Christian religious organizations outside INC to be "children" of the "apostate" Roman Catholic Church....Adherents hold that Iglesia ni Cristo is the only true church of Jesus Christ as restored by Felix Manalo.

Thus we have a one true church-cult, not a real Protestant/evangelical one.

The Iglesia ni Cristo believes in God the Father who is the Creator deity and is the only true God. INC rejects the traditional Christian belief of the trinity of God as heresy,[2][21] adopting a version of unitarianism.

The church sees Jesus as God's highest creation, and denies the deity of Jesus...Members "are saved by Christ's blood" who died because of his "self-sacrificing love".

The church believes that baptism is done by immersion baptism or Believer's baptism by adults in water, and that it is necessary that people be baptised in the Iglesia ni Cristo to become disciples of Jesus Christ

All church ministers and evangelical workers are male, however, there are numerous female church officers. Ministers are encouraged to marry for the purpose of obeying the command to marry and multiply, and to become effective counselors to church members with family-related problems.

The church teaches that willfully forsaking the worship service is a grievous sin,[59] thus members are expected to attend the congregational worship services twice a week without fail.Those who continue in violation of INC doctrines after being admonished are excommunicated or expelled from the INC and thus lose salvation,

The Iglesia ni Cristo believes that the Bible is the sole basis of all their beliefs and practices.

Which is not the same as Scripture alone being the supreme infallible authority,. while the devil invoked Scripture in Mt. 4, yet whom the Lord reproved by Scripture, not tradition, nor even as one possessing assured veracity (though He alone did).

INC members are noted for bloc voting in Philippine elections,[84][85][86] with conversion turn-out between 68 and 84 percent of its members voting for candidates endorsed by its leadership, according to comprehensive surveys conducted by ABS-CBN.[87] This is in part due to their doctrine on unity.

I always said cults have the greatest comprehensive unity under the sola ecclesia model which RCs promote.

The support of the INC was reportedly sought out for passage of the bill for the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012. In 2008, the INC and the Catholic Church were pitted against each other when health advocate RH Advocacy Network (RHAN) sought the support of the INC to counter the firm opposition of the Catholic Church and former Philippine president Gloria Arroyo to the bill.

Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism described INC as a "most powerful union" in the Philippines.[98] Meanwhile, Al Jazeera, a Doha-based broadcasting network, described INC as a "state within a state", saying that it is "an autonomous entity of its own, taking care of its members in remote areas where government presence is scarce, and plugging the gaping hole in terms of basic services that remain woefully lacking in many communities in the archipelago". Furthermore, it was described that the INC "have expanded their influence beyond their membership, and so the group today can be considered to be at par with political parties or national political groups." The inaugural ceremony of INC's Ciudad de Victoria according to them resembled a state visit more than a simple religious gathering.

The Iglesia ni Cristo has been criticized because of their doctrines. Let Us Reason Ministries, an online apologetics research group, opposed the INC for holding the belief that it has the sole authority from God to interpret and preach the Bible, while other religions do not. They also reject the INC's doctrine that one can only be saved if they are a member of the Iglesia ni Cristo.[101] Karl Keating, the founder of Catholic Answers says that the INC engages in anti-Catholicism and anti-Protestantism in its God's Message magazine.

In 2010 the Philippine census by the National Statistics Office found that 2.45 percent of the population in the Philippines are affiliated with the Iglesia ni Cristo, making it the third largest religious denomination in the Philippines after the Roman Catholic Church (80.6%) and Islam (5.6%), respectively.[15][16]

In September 2011, INC bought 59 parcels of land (with an area of 19 hectares) in Scenic, South Dakota for approximately $700,000. Scenic is a ghost town in western South Dakota. No plans for the land have been revealed by the church.[28]

On July 27, 2014, INC celebrated its centennial anniversary at Ciudad de Victoria,..For the worship service conducted for the INC centennial, INC bagged two Guinness World Records for the largest gospel choir with 4,745 members[36] and largest mixed-used indoor theater for the Philippine Arena with 51,929 attendees.[37]

On July 7, 2012, the INC Lingap sa Mamamayan was conducted in the slums of Parola in Tondo, Manila and was awarded three Guinness World Records for breaking records in the most people involved in a dental health check, the most blood pressure readings taken in 8 hours and the most blood glucose level tests in 8 hours.

On March 14, 2014, after conducting a worship service in Tacloban, Leyte, INC Executive Minister Eduardo V. Manalo, led the groundbreaking ceremony of EVM Self-Sustainable Community Rehabilitation Project in Sitio New Era, a 3000-hectare property of the church in Brgy. Langit, Alang-alang, Leyte. The project which costs more than one billion pesos includes at least 1000 housing units for the survivors of super typhoon Haiyan. Garments and dried fish factories, and eco-farming project are also included to provide livelihood to the community. More than 150,000 hunger relief packages were also given which contains 3 kilos of rice, canned goods and instant noodles aside from the free medical and dental services conducted that day.

Fernando Nakpil-Zialcita, an anthropologist from Ateneo de Manila University,[78] said that INC churches can be uniquely identified for "its exuberant use of fanciful forms and ornaments [and a] brilliant white facade whose silhouette is a cusped Gothic arch or a flattened Saracenic arch." “… churches constructed by the Iglesia ni Cristo are always expensive and resplendent and usually appear impressive and overpowering even to the nonbeliever.”

A form of Godliness.

[Elsie]

I have 5.

Two Mallards, two black ducks with blue tips on their wings, and a fat ol’ white one.

[Elsie]

It requires thick skin. A poster must be able to make his points while standing his ground, suffering adverse remarks about his beliefs - or letting them roll off his back.

It's a danged good training ground for debate here on FR!

---

(How do you get all the cat fur off when you go home at night? Herding us all MUST be strenuous!)

[Elsie]

ONe of the all time great movie lines!