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.

[af_vet_1981]

And though a path may not be straight, in this case we see the opposite of upward progression, as none of those churches are Evangelical in it historical sense (one may be evangelical within such) unless the Presbyterian one he went to was, as the Methodist Episcopal Church is a mainline Protestant Christian denomination in North America, as is the Disciples of Christ , and which is not the Christian Missionary Alliance as you stated, and which even allow Jim Jones to be part of its loose clan.

1. Yes, I see a correction under the source, yet other sources claim Manalo as a former member of CMA, as they do some others who are rather embarrassing. Similarly, Manalo is listed as a former member of United Church of Christ in the Philippines, which was somehow joined by the Disciples of Christ there, although Manalo seemed connected to DoC by one of their sponsored missionary couples who later went Independent, at least for a while. The history of the Protestant/Evangelical denominations, faith groups, sects, and yes, cults is a maze. I see no upward progression that lasts very long in any of them, more of continual splits, mergers, splits, apostasies, heresies, etc.
2. AnonymousDecember 26, 2008 at 6:17 AM SOME CORRECTIONS: CMA or Christian Missionary Alliance is different from United Christian Missionary Society of the CHURCH OF CHRIST(Disciples of Christ, USA)which is commonly called CHRISTIAN CHURCH (DISCIPLES). CMA is another denomination where Manalo was then a member. Church of Christ Disciples is actually voted to be apart of the United CHURCH OF CHRIST in the Philippines but some did not and voted to be an independent CHURCHES OF CHRIST. The Disciples are common in the Tagalog Region wherein it was also called IGLESIA NI CRISTO and they are actually Tagalog congregation just like the IGLESIA NI CRISTO established by Manalo.CMA actually believed in Baptism by immersion but the Disciples believe that Baptism through immersion (alone) is essential for salvation - this is another belief Manalo retained in his IGLESIA.
   
   ...
   
   As I said Christian Missionary Alliance is another denomination and is still existing today as the present Christian Missionary Alliance of the Philippines (CAMACOP)(http://www.camacop.org/). Leslie and Carrie Wolfe were once affiliated in the United Christian Missionary Society of the CHRISTIAN CHURCH(Disciples of Christ, USA).

[af_vet_1981]

And there is the idea that historical descent equates to assured veracity

Look at the inverse, assured veracity requires historical descent.

[af_vet_1981]

You have many Caths who leave that faith for another every year, but which you would not allow to impugn Rome. It is not the path that necessarily determines the validity of the final destination, as some take a long path to what both of us would consider a good church, or a wrong one. What one leaves for another is the issue.

Now apply these thoughts and this model to the Gentiles who wandered from the holy catholic apostolic churches in the First Century.

[daniel1212]

Belief content is how one should use "belief content" labels. But that assumes said labels are in fact descriptors of belief content, and that's a problem if one is used to using labels simply for organizational pedigree. ...The two sides are using the same words with two sets of definitions. What else can result but frustration and confusion?

The word Protestant does come from the German princes and cities presenting a defense of freedom of conscience against an edict of the Diet of Spires in 1529 intended to suppress the Lutheran movement (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/protestant), and thus it was not repression of a form of Swedenborgism that they were protesting against but a basic Lutheran faith.

A valid description for a label must be conformity to at least original basic and distinctive doctrines. Thus considering the source of the title Christian," (Acts 11:26) the broad label atheists use to denote Hitler as one must be rejected, as well as those who reject the basic salvific fundamental beliefs by which one becomes a Christian.

This also excludes such faiths as Russelism, Unitarianism, Scientology, Swedenborgism from being Christian.

Likewise one can hardly be considered a Protestant if he denies basic and distinctive beliefs as God as the Creator; the virgin birth; the deity of Christ and the Spirit; salvation by grace thru faith (versus believing one is justified and enters glory by the merit of his own level of holiness); yet that true faith must be the kind that effects practical holiness; the eternal punishment of the wicked lost; Scripture as the supreme standard as the wholly inspired word of God, the rejection of perpetual magisterial infallibility (as well as rejection of any magisterial office).

Maybe more could be added, while if we will be as strict as RCs demand "Catholic" be defined (some reject the EOs as being so), then we must reject evangelicals as being Protestants, since we differ from the basic Lutheran faith that was the original context for the term Protestants, which was actually more Catholic than evangelical Protestantism today.

But which is set in contrast to such a broad definition as John A. Hardon, S.J. of the word Protestant as meaning Protestors, which thus means "we’ve got many more Protestants than we find in the books of the Protestant denominations." - http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Church_Dogma/Church_Dogma_013.htm

Yet Catholics take offense as even using Roman Catholic to describe their church, and would never allow Santeria to be called Catholicism.

[daniel1212]

CMA is another denomination where Manalo was then a member.

Where do you see that in your link? Making an entire paragraph or even an article into one big hyperlink is not common or good .

And note that "Manalo's" last stop before becoming a Filipino "pope" was agnosticism/atheism.

As I said Christian Missionary Alliance is another denomination and is still existing today as the present Christian Missionary Alliance of the Philippines (CAMACOP)(http://www.camacop.org/).

No, you said it was the DoC.

[daniel1212]

Now apply these thoughts and this model to the Gentiles who wandered from the holy catholic apostolic churches in the First Century.

You mean how the church of Rome wandered from the NT church into a significantly different form ? Not so much that some souls could not find Christ and the body of Christ continue, but by the 4th c. you have a pope even employing murderers in working to secure his seat.

[Springfield Reformer]

SR quoting D12: And there is the idea that historical descent equates to assured veracity

AF: Look at the inverse, assured veracity requires historical descent.

And therein you have the perfect circle of Catholic epistemology:  Catholic sacred history authenticates the Church; the Church authenticates Catholic sacred history. 

Circles make me dizzy.  I need something more linear, like, the word of God that is self-authenticating:

Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

Peace,

SR

[annalex]

But the grammatical gender of "heel" is of no relevance here. The verse begins by describing the enmity between the serpent and the woman, and so the natural reading would be that the bruising also will occur between the two antagonists' body parts: the serpent's head and the woman's heel. The fact that in fact there is a third actor introduced, the seed, and that grammatically it is the seed doing the bruising is of course a prophetic vision of the Holy Moses. I am though convinced that millions of Jewish eyes read that passage and mentally corrected the pronouns so that an epic battle between the Jewish Mother and Satan is depicted, not the battle between Jesus and Satan.

For Jerome, it was a dilemma. He probably consulted a rabbi, who said: Of course it is the Jewish nation battling Satan. Jerome, being Christian, recognized that not only by grammar but in truth it is Jesus crushing the serpent. However, he probably felt that to translate "He will crush" would be seen as reaching by non-Christians, who can also consult a rabbi.

Something similar is occurring with Isaiah's "virgin shall conceive", where Christians see a prophecy and Jews see nothing out of the ordinary, a young girl, העלמה, getting naturally pregnant. In that case Jerome threw caution to the wind and translated as the Holy Ghost lead him.

Why Jerome followed a judaized interpretation in the case of Genesis 3:15, but not in Isaiah 7:14 I don't know. It could be that to him Mary was a natural amalgamation of the Jewish nation and the Christian Church personified all at once, so he felt a marian reference would resolve the puzzle.

Of course, this is pure play of imagination on my part. It could be that quite simply the copy Jerome was working on had a feminine pronoun.

[Elsie]

Now apply these thoughts and this model to the Gentiles who wandered from the holy catholic apostolic churches in the First Century.

You mean the ones who HEEDED John's angelic warning to LEAVE these seven, woinderful Catholic churches in Asia and RAN like Hell?

[hlmencken3]

Of course it is the Jewish nation battling Satan

Interesting. I don't recall seeing that from any Jewish source.

[af_vet_1981]

And therein you have the perfect circle of Catholic epistemology: Catholic sacred history authenticates the Church; the Church authenticates Catholic sacred history.

Circles make me dizzy. I need something more linear, like, the word of God that is self-authenticating: Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

It seems to me it would make one dizzy If one assumes the Messiah did not leave a visible, historic, holy catholic apostolic Church on this earth against whom the gates of hell will not prevail. With that assumption none of the last eighteen centuries make much sense.

It seems to me
1. we do not have every word that proceeds from the mouth of God recorded in any Bible
2. we do not have any of the original manuscripts
3. we do not have any of the New Testament books written in the original Hebrew
4. Sola Scriptura proponents cannot agree on which (English) translation to use
5. Sola Scriptura proponents cannot agree on which surviving manuscripts to use for the translations they do produce
6. Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura proponents cannot agree on who to baptize, when to baptize, and how to baptize.

[annalex]

Well, I may be wrong. But also a rabbi of the 4th century may differ in his world view from an American rabbi in the 21st century.

[hlmencken3]

A rabbi from the 4th century, if identified, would be much more authoritative than someone more recent.

There may be such an explanation. It’s just not one I recall from Rashi or the Mishna/Talmud.

[BlueDragon]

Someone seems to think that playing dumb will work forever!

You noticed that did you, Elsie?

And in all of this, even when narrowed to only the Genesis 3:15 issue, one significant thing which is being ignored is that not only do no other translations to speak of from outside of RCC indicate that it would be a "her" which does the crushing of the serpents head -- BUT even the "New Vulgate" --- which must be the "official" bible of the Roman Catholic Church --- does not place "her" foot on the serpents head, either.

The "copy error" which changed ipsum (masculine, or "he") to ipsa has been reversed! (back to how Jerome originally translated it into Latin, in correction of the later error).

Yet in seemingly mindless assertion, alex says "the point remains".

What point? What points?

I've obliterated most any of those alleged "points". And I am not alone -- all this work has been done by others. All I have to do is [ahem] point to it.

[af_vet_1981]

You mean how the church of Rome wandered from the NT church into a significantly different form ? Not so much that some souls could not find Christ and the body of Christ continue, but by the 4th c. you have a pope even employing murderers in working to secure his seat.

No. It sounds to me like the Protestant/Evangelical story that there were no surviving apostolic churches after the first two centuries, and the world was effectively lost for at least thirteen hundred years, until a Catholic priest rebelled against the Catholic Church, ending up a notorious anti-Semite that re-formed the religion. One could at least join the Independent Fundamental Baptist churches and preach that they survived from the time of the apostles until now. That would be a claim of legitimacy. Three remain: those IFB fellowships (assuming their claim is historical for argument's sake), the Orthodox churches, and the Catholic churches. The rest are offshoots of one of these. There is a fourth alternative theory, which arguably leads to more cults, where anyone can read any Bible, and without any apostolic teaching to guide him, can found a new denomination, faith group, sect or cult.

I note the Messiah did not command the Apostles to compile a Bible and promulgate it throughout the world. He did command them to teach all nations, baptizing them (in water) in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He again promised to be with them until the end, or consummation, of the world.

Finally, I see Messiah's prayer for unity. He never failed in His prayers so I believe in the holy catholic apostolic Church, which by the grace of Almighty God, has a place, I trust, for separated, as well as, elder brethren.

[annalex]

Right; that was a bad translation. My statement is not about translations but about the original Genesis as Holy Moses wrote it.

[BlueDragon]

How you began the comment to which I here reply, with an extremely questionable assertion;

But the grammatical gender of "heel" is of no relevance here.

and how you ended

Of course, this is pure play of imagination on my part.

about sums things up, as for your own refusal to acknowledge the simplest of things -- seemingly to me, when or if those things may be an embarrassment to Roman Catholicism, and/or diminish support for Marionism.

It could be that quite simply the copy Jerome was working on had a feminine pronoun.

No, it can't be for the simple reason that Jerome did not "use feminine pronoun" as to the gender, or sex identity of who it was that shall crush the serpent's head.

Other people, from among those of the RCC -- who knows who -- at some point later, changed the gender in the Latin text. It really is as simple as that.

There was apparently some pressure to do so from time of Jerome's translation, going by the information at one one of the links which has already been provided to you --- TWICE.

Your "dogs" just don't hunt -- as that saying goes.

As for credibility --- there is another saying which could apply to the argumentation presented by yourself, here recently on this thread ---- "when in a hole, it is best to stop digging".

And --- the RCC "Magesterium" has now recently changed it back -- bringing the official Latin version into alignment with an overpowering majority of Greek and Hebrew texts, and various language translations derived from those, in all, or in part.

[BlueDragon]

My statement is not about translations but about the original Genesis as Holy Moses wrote it.

This is getting more bizarre by the moment.

What's the deal now?

Are you searching for some way to walk your comments back -- without having to admit to having been in error?

Phhfft.

Fat chance, mister.

Man up and own up to all the things which you have said here -- that again and again have been proved to be in error, or just stay home, and quite bothering people.

[annalex]

Other people, from among those of the RCC -- who knows who -- at some point later, changed the gender in the Latin text.

And you know that how?

[annalex]

What is it you find “bizarre”?