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.

[Elsie]

My barn cats are back fillin’ all over the unfrozen gravel floor in the barn!

[Elsie]

WHOA!!

It was the right size in PREVIEW~!!!

[daniel1212]

Half a century???

Be assured more could be added, but the point here is that no matter how manifestly and extensively corrupt and fractured Rome has and can become, then RCs seem to imagine a unified church always looking to an infallible supreme head in Rome (unseen in Scripture), and a all-holy church in Mary from which Biblical separation (2Co. 6:14-18) could never be compelled, and mo matter how long it remains with no successor or uncertainty as to one, then this is still defined as unbroken succession.

[annalex]

How conveniently obscure it all can be

Indeed many web applications today are what in the computer engineering is called not RESTful, -- there is no direct relationship between content and the URL. Most common one is Facebook.

Jerome's original text varied from what came to be common, some time later.

I have no doubt each text of the Bible has undergone copying errors. This is why my reference was to the Genesis as Holy Moses wrote it. It is, I know, not extant, but it is nevertheless the capital-O Original. That has not changed because it cannot change. With the tools on hand we can nevertheless approximate this and other originals. About Gen 3:15 we know, and I now learned that it was not Jerome who committed the "she" error. Some doubt remains: the last half of Mark 16, the Adulteress Pericope, the Johannine Comma are where we don't know the Original. But the Original cannot change.

The Vulgate is called, I believe, sufficient for understanding or something like that. It is not "official" like the Protestants imagine things in the Catholic Church to be. It is certainly never passed as the Original. Yes, "there are variances within different versions of Latin Vulgate", -- that was never my point to say otherwise.

[annalex]

Jerome did claim that the Old Testament portions of his own translation were from Hebrew

He also consulted the Septuagint and the Jewish tradition.

unless you desire to entirely disavow Latin translations

Not disavow, of course. They are translations. They are very important because they gave us a window into the Holy Catholic Church of the 4th century. Translations can change, and perhaps, they should change. But the Holy Bible as given you by the Catholic Church has not changed in 2000 years.

[daniel1212]

No they didn't....they, of course built buildings to meet in, libraries to hold their documents and hand copied Bibles, monasteries to train their followers and future leaders in, Cathedrals to establish local bishops who would oversee a group of parish churches and a normal method of growing a worldwide church..

And Mormonism has and is doing the like. Organization structure and activity itself does not validate a church .

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. (Matthew 23:15)

..as Christ commanded....to better spread His word. Worked real good....

Wrong, the errors of Rome is not what Christ commanded, but that of Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matthew 28:20)

And which NT church did not know of the many things Rome came to teach.

churches in every country in the world and about 1.3 billion members....

And thereby you promote a church which treats even proabortion, prohomo, promuslim pols are members in life and in death, consists of a near majority which support such. Which speaks louder than some paper conservative statements.

the only one that He promised to be with until the end of time,

Wrong, as that refers to the one true church, the body of Christ which alone 100% consists of believers, while Rome sadly largely is a church of tares which shall be burned, as it has become as the gates of Hell for multitudes

[daniel1212]

the only one which repeats on a daily basis the Eucharist which is one of His greatest gifts,

And just where do you see a separate class of NT clergy distinctively titled “hiereus” (=priest from "preost") whose primary function was to daily offer up transubstantiated human flesh as a atonement for sin and dispensing it to the people in order for them to obtain spiritual and eternal life?

You want to extrapolate all that out of the gospel accounts of the last supper and John 6? Then show me where all this is supported in the life of the church, in the breaking of bread in Acts and in the Epistles and letters to the churches in revelation, without reading into the text what you desire to see.

Surely seeing as the Eucharist is the "the source and summit of the Christian life," (CCC 136) in which liturgy "the work of our redemption is accomplished," and by which souls obtain spiritual and eternal life, then we should surely see this constantly being preached as this means, and apostles and priests conducting this liturgy.

And with this being principally commended as a mark of good churches and set forth as a solution for poor ones, along with being part of the purpose for the qualifications of pastors.

But instead what do we see in Acts and the rest of the NT, which are interpretive of the gospels? (Of course as need be, RCs can treat the gospels as if formally sufficient and the rest of the NT as rather superfluous). Nowhere do we see any presbuteros distinctively titled “hiereus” and dispensing any physical food as their ordained function, let alone as their primary one.

Nor is the Lord's supper set forth as the means by which souls obtain spiritual and eternal life, or as the primary means of grace, as instead, prayer and preaching the word of God is set forth as the primary function of the pastorate, (Acts 6:3,4; 2Tim. 4:2; Titus 1:9) by which they themselves and the flock are "nourished" (1Tim. 4:6) and built up, by which they feed the flock. (Acts 20:26,28,32)

For it is by believing the gospel that one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and gows by desiring the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, and letting it dwell in them, (Col. 3:16)

For indeed, Christ taught that, As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. (John 6:57)

And, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4)

And, Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. (John 4:34)

And which metaphorical understanding of Jn. 6:29ff is the only one that is consistent with John and the rest of Scripture. In which no spiritual life is never obtained by one ever obtained by literally physically eating anything, and drinking water is plainly stated to be the blood of men, and poured out onto the ground as an offering to the Lord, (2 Samuel 23:15-17) and people are called “bread" for Israel, (Num. 14:9) while the word of God is eaten. (Rev. 10:8-9 ) More here .

And outside a reference to the "feast of charity" (Jn. 1:12) the Lord's supper is only manifestly described in one epistle, and in which for the church, the "one bread, and one body," (1Co. 10:17) "discerning the body" refers to effectually recognizing each member as part of the body of Christ which He purchased by His own sinless shed blood; in mindfulness of Christ and His sacrificial love showing care for the body by sharing that communal meal, which thus "shows," declares," "proclaims" the Lord's sacrificial death for the body.

Which is set in contrast to them who "shame them that have not" by not even waiting for the others but going ahead and filling their faces while others were hungry. And which was the sin the apostle reproved, as in effect they were not actually coming together to eat the "Lord's supper," as instead it was their "own supper." As shown and shown more here . (1Cor. 11:17-34)

[af_vet_1981]

"Do you wish to defend Luther ? Go for it. Do you wish to defend Sola Fide that a man can viciously hate the Jewish people and plot against them until his dying day and go straight to heaven ?"

That is not the argument at all, and resorting to try to make it that is a specious argument against Protestantism, and indicates desperation or a preoccupation with anti-antisemitism which you seem blind to in your own church.

Oh but it is the argument. You introduced Luther in post 5681. It seems to me he is fundamental to your faith, for if he is held to account for his rabid hatred of the Jews, and fails to enter heaven on the basis of Sola Fide, then the reformed religion generally called the Reformation was re-based on error and is illegitimate. And sure enough, I read hear a defense of his antiSemitism that blames ... the Jews and the Catholics. So, yes, I do see Luther as your pope, of sorts.

[metmom]

Since you posted it the right size, could you have this one removed?

It’s really messing with my computer’s ability to down load.

[BlueDragon]

The Vulgate is called, I believe, sufficient for understanding or something like that. It is not "official" like the Protestants imagine things in the Catholic Church to be.

It's not a thing of "Protestant imagination", for only that version has been declared official Catholic bible by popes -- more than once.

But I see you are still dodging the question -- by talking all around it!

Some doubt remains: the last half of Mark 16, the Adulteress Pericope, the Johannine Comma are where we don't know the Original. But the Original cannot change.

As I already had made mention of myself (other than the doubts concerning Mark 16:9-20). But for this "Original" (which you've now taken to capitalize) just what are you talking about? We have no autographs.

It is certainly never passed as the Original.

The title which you used was not "Original", but instead was "Catholic". But nice job of slithering around and changing your arguments after having your own original repeatedly fail.

Original Catholic Bible --- what is it?

Yes, "there are variances within different versions of Latin Vulgate", -- that was never my point to say otherwise.

So now the effort to defend the Vulgate having been altered in the protoevangelium is being abandoned? It's about time.

If there is some "point" you are trying to make, it is still hidden from view, for each successive effort to rescue your "point" has failed, been falsified, or shown otherwise to not be as portrayed, or else to not matter all that much.

[BlueDragon]

Here's your point -- which you keep repeating, like some mantra which has been brainwashed into your own head;

But the Holy Bible as given you by the Catholic Church has not changed in 2000 years.

And what precisely is this "Holy Bible given...by the Catholic Church"?

It cannot include the deuterocanon, as I have already established...or else you will need to adjust your claim to "has not changed for the last 500 years" or so.

Yet again I must also ask -- just WHAT is this "Catholic Church" you are talking about?

If it is the one with a singular "pope" as it's head bishop of bishops, then that Church did not give "me" much of anything.

It was more like people had to pry the Scriptures from that Church's hands. The RCC "gave" nothing.

Stop trying to rewrite history to better suit Romish apologetic, and how that ecclesiastical body would prefer to view itself.

Around and around in circles this conversation goes.

I've had about enough of your games, alex.

[daniel1212]

Oh but it is the argument. You introduced Luther in post 5681. It seems to me he is fundamental to your faith, for if he is held to account for his rabid hatred of the Jews, and fails to enter heaven on the basis of Sola Fide, then the reformed religion generally called the Reformation was re-based on error and is illegitimate.

That is absurd, and frankly, it makes RCs look ignorant, stupid or desperate! Most evangelicals are quite in different to Luther, which is consistent with him not promoting a reformed papacy, but elevated Scripture as supreme, and thus they significantly differ with him (who was far more Catholic). However, his antisemitism, or more precisely, anti-judaism, is regularly deplored by those who know of it, though sometimes explained in context.

And many pro Jewish evangelicals are very hard on Luther, such as Michael L. Brown in "Our Hands Are Stained with Blood ," and sometimes seem to fail to consider that Jewish behavior could render them rather hard to love (which again, does not excuse any hatred), even by Moses, but which can apply to all races to varying degrees. Great sinners can make great saints.

And rather than invalidating Sola Fide, if Luther was lost due to impenitent hatred of Jews then it affirms Sola Fide, which teaches the elect are those who die in faith, which worketh by love, taught and showed .

And which has its parallel with popes (and prelates) who not only treated Jews harshly - of which much can be said - but sanctioned torture and death and and required the extermination of "heretics" which would include me. Thus the question, do you, like some other RCs, approve of this, and under Rome's gospel would they go to Heaven if they died affirming this?

Meanwhile, i never expressed to you any weight being upon the character of Luther for my faith, as in fact unlike the papacy, the veracity of what i believe must be based upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation.

And instead my "introduction" of Luther was merely that of a quote from your Ratzinger, explaining, to his credit, the context of the Reformation!

But the mere mention of his name sends RCs as you into a frenzy of vituperations against Luther and irrational argumentation, which seems to me that he is fundamental to their hatred of Protestants and or the faith of Protestantism.

And sure enough, I read hear a defense of his antiSemitism that blames ... the Jews and the Catholics.

"Blames?" You mean making Luther blameless or holding it was inexcusable while providing the context for how this developed, as good historians do, and which i myself allow for negative RC treatment of Jews . But the evidence is that RCs become incapable of objective examination when it comes to those who oppose her.

Yet RCs certainly believe some context and balance should be given when seeing such testimonies as that of Pope Pius XII & the Holocaust , and which should be, and as it is Rome which teaches that the one duty of the multitude is to simply follow the pastors, and they condemn evangelicals for examining the warrant for teachings, then even ordinary papal teachings and actions carry far more weight than those a man who who directed men to look to Scripture above all.

And in explaining anti-Jewish sentiment, a Catholic site admits.

There was much history of bad feelings between Judaism and Christianity. Ninety thousand Christians were slaughtered in 614 AD in Jerusalem, and the Jewish people approved of the slaughter. There were endless scuffles for limited resources, and fighting in places like Alexandria, and whenever there was oppression of Christians in those days, the Jewish people would never come to the defence of Christians, but rather they joined the persecution. Violence between people runs deeps and is long remembered. When Christianity finally dominated Europe, many Christians mistakenly let that rivalry continue rather than welcome Jewish communities among them.

RC apologist Dr. Art Sippo says:

Some "Messianics" exaggerate the animosity of Christians towards the Jews without considering the hatred of Jews towards the Christians. Neither side is innocent of wrong doing in this matter. This story is not black and white, everyone has things they need to repent about. -http://catholicbridge.com/catholic/replacement_theology.php

I can imagine how i would be castigated by some RCs if i ever said that in the context of Prot. anti-Jewish sentiment.

So, yes, I do see Luther as your pope, of sorts.

Then unless "of sorts" means a pope whose teachings the "papists" reject even as to what books are Scripture proper, as well as many other things, and of whom they are largely ignorant of, then you are deceived or dishonest.

And it remains that as i show , the Lord's coming awaits his recognition by all Israel, for a hardening has come upon part of Israel in their unbelief toward Jesus, and that this full inclusion of the Jews will be in the wake of the full number of the Gentiles being saved, though it seems some RCs disagree.

[Gamecock]

**So, yes, I do see Luther as your pope, of sorts.**

Which does nothing but show how wrong you and your cabal can be!

[CynicalBear]

Oh what a tangled web they weave.

[Elsie]

No they didn't....they, of course built buildings to meet in, libraries to hold their documents and hand copied Bibles, monasteries to train their followers and future leaders in...

---

---

Speaking of Catholic Schools...

...check out this Indianapolis one:

 

http://www.haschool.holyangelsindy.org/

 

 

 

Notice OBAMA and "PROGRESS" hanging on the wall in the gym below ??

 

 

Watch for him AGAIN in this video http://www.wthr.com/video?clipId=11020949&autostart=true

 

 

So; MY question is: are they posting Barry's picture because he's BLACK?  Because he's LIBERAL?  Because he's BOTH?

What percentage of CATHOLICS VOTED for OBAMA; anyway???

[Elsie]

I pinged the mod to take it down.

[af_vet_1981]

And instead my "introduction" of Luther was merely that of a quote from your Ratzinger, explaining, to his credit, the context of the Reformation!

False. You introduced Luther in post 5681 with respect to arguing he was not antiSemitic.

until a Catholic priest rebelled against the Catholic Church, ending up a notorious anti-Semite that re-formed the religion.

You keep trying the anti-Semite card only to be shown how much popes were like Rome in this attitude, to which they added actions. Do you want to see it again?

I agreed to your invitation to debate Luther's antiSemitism. You immediately blamed the Jews and the Catholics for Luther's antisemitism and I will continue to respond as I get bandwidth and time opportunities.

[Springfield Reformer]

 if he is held to account for his rabid hatred of the Jews, and fails to enter heaven on the basis of Sola Fide, then the reformed religion generally called the Reformation was re-based on error and is illegitimate

There are a number of reasons why your logic above doesn't work, but I believe the two biggest problems are these

1. Our uncertainty of Luther's final spiritual state from God's point of view:

Let's suppose for the sake of argument Luther's opposition to the Jews went too far and was blameworthy. Does anyone know whether Luther might have repented in his final moments?  That's harder to say.  Some of his later work, while still concerned about protecting Christian faith from Jewish unbelief, seemed to be more temperate.  Was he maturing on the issue?  And this is the central problem with this premise.  An unrecorded late in life change of heart is possible. Because with God all things are possible, are they not?  Therefore we cannot make the argument that Sola Fide "didn't work" in Luther's case. Only God knows that for certain.

2.  The Reformation's reaffirmation of Sola Fide was not based on just one individual.

Even if one factors out all the Scriptural and patristic evidence, not to mention the pre-reformation figures and groups who held an evangelical form of the faith, there are multiple claims to the reformation-era appearance of Sola Fide. For example, it was French RC Scholar Lefevre D’Etaples who explicated Sola Fide before either Luther or Calvin, who influenced them both, and who apparently was the individual who influenced Calvin to break with Rome, though he never did so himself.  

Furthermore, Calvin was himself a priest, and his break with Rome was his own, not Luther's.  What Luther had done that the reformers before him failed to do, was not invent new doctrine, or be the first or last to break with Rome, but to make such a good case for repudiating Rome that it excited European political interest in developing an alternative to the Holy Roman Empire.  So while Calvin and other reform-minded persons no doubt benefited from the changing political environment, he does not trace his spiritual line through Luther, but through Lefevre D’Etaples and possibly others still.  Indeed, at the stream of Sola Fide Luther appears as only one of it's many discoverers.  There were those before him, and those after him, and many of those not because of him, but merely along side him, finding for themselves the simplicity of the Gospel in Scripture.

So blaming the Reformation all on Luther is a gross oversimplification of what was going on during the Reformation era.  To pin it all on Luther may simplify the polemic against non-Catholics, but it is a cartoon version of a much richer reality, and has no power to discredit Sola Fide by way of a genetic fallacy.

There are other problems with the logic presented, but these are sufficient to show that the conclusion does not follow from these unsupportable premises.  

What does seem apparent is that the impulse to simplify the work of God in any of the reformational movements to some single, supposedly vulnerable target tells us more about the RC model of emperor-driven theology than it does about the opponents of that model.  It looks like projection to me.  But we don't use that model.  Protestantism will never be discredited by such means.  Our model absorbs a Luther, takes what matches Scripture, and spits out the rest, without missing a beat.  It baffles me that the "take out the leader" strategy is even used.  The RC apologist set us up with a tiny toy pope that exists only in their own pope-oriented imagination, then knocks him down, thinking that will impress those of us whose only ecclesiastical Papa is our Father in Heaven, whose word we possess and feed on every day.  

Peace,

SR

[boatbums]

Roger that!

[af_vet_1981]

Furthermore, Calvin was himself a priest,

False

Calvin never was ordained in the Catholic Church; his training was chiefly in law and the humanities; he took no vows.