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.

[metmom]

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

Well, that's sure interesting to know cause most of your fellow Catholics think he was and castigate him for *breaking* his vows of celibacy.

Now it appears that all that frothing at the mouth over that issue is for naught.

[MamaB]

You are so right. The catholics killed people for simply having the Bible. What were they so afraid of? People really had to fight to have their own copies. I have never understood that. Catholics never gave people anything.

[daniel1212]

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

Wrong, as it is you who first introduce Luther with "a notorious anti-Semite that re-formed the religion," which is what i responded to in 5681 by merely saying "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 thus said nothing about Luther not being antiSemitic, and the only reference to him after that is the quote by Ratzinger to do with the contextual mess leading up to the Reformation, which related to the progressive deformation of the church in response to your assertion that the world must have been effectively lost for at least thirteen hundred years if the church was so deformed.

And which was the topic in which you resorted to trying to discredit by invoking Luther's words against the Jews, as if he was some maverick in this, ignoring similar animus Rome evidenced.

Which is typical for RCs, just as they imagine Luther was some maverick and did not have scholarly and historical RC company in judging apocryphal books as not being Scripture, whom they charge left them out of his Bible.

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.

Meaning affirmation of his bitterness ,

but the fact that this was provoked, yet that this bitterness and its expression was contrary to saving faith as Luther had himself defined it,

and arguing that the iniquities of a leader does not necessarily impugn all the beliefs of that church,

and listing some of Rome's anti-Jewish words and actions, since you never indict her in your rabid anti-Protestantism, somehow translates a defense of Luther's inquiry or even render into Luther being blameless?

Does Catholic testimony to the iniquities of the Jews help understand the ill treatment by Rome of them, and defend it? No, but as with different kinds of crimes, it defends against a greater charge such as unprovoked cold blooded murder, versus that which was the result of provocation and passion.

But a lynch will have none of this.

Try to stay out of jury service. Your rabid response makes it obvious your conclusion is determined by your bias and animus.

[af_vet_1981]

But a lynch will have none of this. Try to stay out of jury service. Your rabid response makes it obvious your conclusion is determined by your bias and animus.

How do you get away with this ? Oh, I know.

[af_vet_1981]

Wrong, as it is you who first introduce Luther with "a notorious anti-Semite that re-formed the religion," which is what i responded to in 5681 by merely saying "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 wrote "You introduced Luther in post 5681 with respect to arguing he was not antiSemitic." You chose to introduce his name in your post, ostensibly to defend him, so he is your client now, so to speak.

I thus said nothing about Luther not being antiSemitic, and the only reference to him after that is the quote by Ratzinger to do with the contextual mess leading up to the Reformation, which related to the progressive deformation of the church in response to your assertion that the world must have been effectively lost for at least thirteen hundred years if the church was so deformed.

False, based on your own evidence in post 5681 where you tried to shield Luther from what you tried to diminish as the "anti-Semite card" which is evidently all it is to you, by your own words, by your own admission. And you had the audacity to ask me "Do you want to see it again ?" Go for it.

[af_vet_1981]

Do you think Luther always had this bitterness, which developed as a result of continual rejection and hardened blasphemy that his RC contemporaries testified to. Moses was provoked by them to speak unadvisedly with his lips,(Ps. 106:33) but how much more Luther, and inexcusably so.

No, I think he had it most of the time, had an opportunity to obey the second great commandment, and decided in his heart it did not apply to the Jews. So he hated them, all of them, to the end of his vulgar, bitter, twisted life. If he was inexcusable, why offer excuses for him ? I've already postulated my theory.

Do you think Luther even taught such a faith as salvific, and know that passionate Luther did not repent? "For it is impossible for him who believes in Christ, as a just Savior, not to love and to do good. If, however, he does not do good nor love, it is sure that faith is not present.." [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:40]

I think he excluded the Jews from humanity, so to speak, which the Nazis took from him to the next logical level. The Moslems do so as well, and above you blame the Jews for causing Luther to hate them. As if it was their fault Luther chose evil, and others make this same argument with respect to the Nazis and Moslems. It is a classic antiSemitic argument to blame the Jews for their own persecution at the hands of the Gentiles. Luther and the Nazis perfected it.

[Springfield Reformer]

SR: Furthermore, Calvin was himself a priest,

AF: False

It appears you are correct. Sorry about that. Thanks for catching that.

Peace,

SR

[Mark17]

People really had to fight to have their own copies. I have never understood that. Catholics never gave people anything.

By keeping the people ignorant, it was easier to keep them under their power.

[af_vet_1981]

Do you as a RC argue that the iniquities of a leader impugn all the beliefs of that church? Do you even think we follow Luther as a pope? Do you think the words and actions of popes did not also contribute to antisemitism in Germany and elsewhere? Do you think Rome is more pro-Israel than evangelicals, and not for eschatological reasons?

Yes when said leader founded it; yes, else you would condemn him and not count him as a founder, but he is the founder so you are stuck with him;yes and they can either be in a state of purgatory or eternal judgment and it changes no catholic doctrine; no, I think some Evangelicals will support the State of Israel to the last drop of Jewish blood, but not their own with some few exceptions ..., significant numbers of younger Evangelicals do not share their parents' support of Israel, and already oppose Israel. The Catholic Church has diplomatic relations with Israel and is friendlier to the Jewish people than any other church, faith group, sect, or cult I can think of.

Just what is your problem that you seem to inevitably resort to the "Luther was an anti-Semite" screed to deal with the Reformation. Are you acting out of being a victim of anti-antisemitism that prevents you from dealing with this issue objectively and in context?

I view the Reformation built on this notorious antiSemite to be an abomination. I base it on Messiah's second commandment, parable of the sheep and goats, condemnation of the doctrine of Baalam, and so much more.

Do you wish to defend Sola Ecclesia as meaning men can require physical extermination of people even such as me as well as manifest hate of the Jewish people and work against them and end up in heaven without repentance?

Sola Ecclesia is not a Catholic doctrine; it is a Protestant ascription/assignment to Catholics, what you call a straw man. I defend the judgment of all nations, separating them into sheep and goats, based on what they did with respect to the least of Messiah's brethren.

[MamaB]

I agree. If the people did not have their own copy of the Bible, they would be forced to listen to the Catholics without being able to see for themselves if what they were being told was Biblical or just made up tradition. When I was learning about this, I was doing genealogy research on my late husband’s ancestors back in the 1990’s. I had never really thought about it too much until then. I am learning a lot more about them from these threads.

[Mark17]

I am learning a lot more about them from these threads

Me too, and I am an ex catholic myself. I was always angry, as Metmom pointed out once before, because I thought so called Protestants were able to get away with things I could not get away with, like I had to go to mass, when I would rather watch a football game. I had to embarrass myself by going to confession to a priest, and they didn't. After those guys with the Navigatirs, helped lead me to the REAL Jesus, not the Jesus of different religions out there, I dumped all this ritualistic stuff. Do you think I made the right decision MamaB?

:-)

[MamaB]

Of course. Jesus is the answer. The only answer. I have friends who belong to certain churches. They have long hair, can not wear pants, etc. I attended some of those churches as a kid. But, back in the good ole days, we had to wear dresses, skirts and blouses to school even when I was in college. The only disagreement I ever had with a teacher was with my senior year English teacher. She told me girls should wear the same type of clothes to college football games. I disagreed very strongly. Who wants to wear heels to games after walking “miles” from the car? After seeing what some wear these days, I often think there should be some kind of dress code. : )

[af_vet_1981]

Do you think Luther always had this bitterness, which developed as a result of continual rejection and hardened blasphemy that his RC contemporaries testified to. Moses was provoked by them to speak unadvisedly with his lips,(Ps. 106:33) but how much more Luther, and inexcusably so.

Further, which makes this argument so much more wrong is :
1. Moses was willing to give his soul for the least of Messiah's brethren, as it is written in Exodus in the chapter named thirty two by a Catholuc and the verses called thirty one and thirty two by another Catholic turned Protestant: And Moses returned unto the Lord, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.
2. Paul was willing to give his soul for the least of Messiah's brethren, in the book called Romans in the chapter named nine by a Catholic and the verses called one through five by another Catholic turned Protestant: I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
3. Luther, dying from disease which perhaps God cursed him with for cursing the Jews, in perhaps his last letter to his wife, speaks of preaching from the pulpit to put pressure on a local noblewoman to remove her protection and sanctuary of a miserable, poor, needy, huddle of some Jews, just like Nazis did in the Holocaust. And what happens to those Jews when protection is removed ? What happens to the women ? Women Luther may have listed after ? He wrote about that in the letter. Who knows how depraved he was ?

   His letter in 1546 to Katherine, the former nun, his wife or accomplice:
   
   "I think that hell and the whole world must now be empty of all devils, who, perhaps for my sake, have congregated here at Eisleben, so hard has this affair run aground. There are also Jews here, about fifty in one house, as I have written to you previously. Now it is said that in Rissdorf -- close to Eisleben, where I became I'll during my journey -- there are supposedly four hundred Jews living and working. Count Albrecht, who owns all the area around Eisleben, has declared that the Jews who are caught on his property are outlaws. But as yet no one wants to do them any harm. The Countess of Mansfield, the widow of Solms, is considered to be the protector of the Jews. I do not know whether this is true. Today I made my opinion known in a sufficiently blunt way if anyone wishes to pay attention to it. Otherwise it might not do any good at all. You people pray, pray, pray, and help us that we do all things properly, for today in my anger I had made up my mind to grease the carriage. But the misery of my fatherland, which came to my mind, has stopped me.
   
   I have also now become a jurist, but this will not be to their advantage. It would have been better had they let me remain a theologian, for if I meddle with them, should I live, I will turn out to be a goblin who by God's grace will attack vigorously their haughtiness. They behave as if they were God; certainly they had better abandon this attitude soon, before their god turns into a demon, as happened to Lucifer, who because of his haughtiness simply was unable to remain in heaven. Well, God's will be done.

And herein we see how the first two obeyed Messiah and kept His second great commandment, in the book called Leviticus in the chapter named nineteen by a Catholic and the verses called seventeen and eighteen by another Catholic turned Protestant: Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

[daniel1212]

Does anyone know whether Luther might have repented in his final moments?

That is only allowed of a Ted Kennedy or a Hugo Chavez , etc. As if they needed to as a RC.

[terycarl]

You are correct sir. I don't regret it, and I don't think you do either. Praise God for the Navigators.

When you first referred to the Navigators, I thought that you were referring to a group of your military buddies that you respected because of their performance in the military. I then looked up the Navigators on Google and found that they are a group of people, from about 1933 who have decided that they know more about Jesus than does either the Catholic church or any of the many Christian Protestant denominations.

I'm not certain why groups like that spring up out of the woodwork, but apparently they do and basically one is no better that the other. I cannot imagine leaving any established Christian church and relying on a store front, "Johnny Come Lately" ministry for the salvation of my soul.....they may be good, but their extraordinarily short history leaves a lot to be desired.

You may feel very comfortable there, and more power to you for it, but as you mature, you need to re-evaluate what you are giving up in comparison to what you are getting. 2,000 years of Christian history and teaching in exchange for the opinions of a group from Colorado Springs with no history whatsoever seems like a stretch to me.....Eternity is a very long time to gamble on a group of nice people who have been dissident Christians for 60-70 years.....

[annalex]

It is actually a useful distinction about any text. There is the original, — whether known or not and then there are copies, some imprecise. If we were to discuss, for example, Uncle Tom’s Cabin we would have to do the same work: cuth through typos to get to the original and then reason about the original. Obviously, in the case of a document whose most recent addition was written about 2000 years ago, the task is harder. I don’t know what is it here to not understand.

No, the Catholic Church never altered the original Bible. It brought it to the masses in forms she best could. These forms are somewhat fluid. The Bible isn’t.

[annalex]

It cannot include the deuterocanon

Sure it included it: it was in the Septuagint, which was the de-facto canon of the Old Testament in the Catholic Church, at least since St. Paul wrote "all the scripture thou knowest since infancy is inspired by God" (quote my memory, I am sure you recognize).

[terycarl]

...that means that Mary has to handle approximately 139 'requests' per second! Purty good fer someone NOT 'devine'!

is there really a time consideration in Heaven???

wasn't there something about a day and a thousand years and eternity and no consideration of time and.....whatever, YOU KNOW THE REST!!

[terycarl]

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.

Just keep up that illusion of yours...I think that I'll stick with what most Christians on Earth know is the truth.

Year after year, people come out of wherever and decide to advance new and sometimes bizarre theories of how salvation works. They try to deny the apparent and documented....they reinterpret teachings and situations to better serve the views that they espouse. I guess that everyone is free to do whatever they wish, and many on this thread have decided that they can do it themselves....O.K. for them, more power to them, but I don't have enough guts to denounce thousands of years of Christian teachings and go off on my own trying to reinvent Christianity....