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.

[Mrs. Don-o]

1. Immaculate Conception.

Because, Kecharitomene! Luke 1:28. It's either true, or the angel didn't know what he was talking about.

2. Assumption.

Because, Revelation 12! She's portrayed as being in Heaven, just as the Ark of the Covenant is in Heaven.

This little video should make the rich Biblical testimony a little clearer(LINK).

Just about every Marian prophecy, type, or foreshadowing in the Old Testament speaks either of her Motherhood, her sinlessness, or her being raised to the King's right hand.

That's something so few people have even looked into: the wealth of Mary-related prophecy in the Old Testament.

[metmom]

I never made any claim that any church leader spoke infallibly.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Everyone knows those were errors and sins. Nobody denies that. Talk about error, the whole flippin’ Reformation was started by monks and priests, ex-monks married to ex-nuns, used-to-be Catholics, vow-breakers all. Your point?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Overheated, you know.

And it's not like I'm above being "overheated"!

[Mrs. Don-o]

#5957

I think you've seen this already.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Oh good grief. It confirms what I said earlier......cafeteria catholicism. --- hyperinfallibilism.

[daniel1212]

Many people vastly overstate infallibility.

And yet if you restrict "unchanging Magisterium" = “unchanging truth" to what is infallible then you have not understated what RCs consider as unchanging?

So you're frequently challenging Catholics to defend stray quotes which were never claimed to be part of the "unchanging Magisterium" to begin with. Even popes and Doctors of the Church have erroneous theological opinions. Or didn't you know that?

I certain know that can, have and do. But which for a RC presupposes they can determine "erroneous" without relying on unofficial variant interpretations, all of which on any level RCs censor if by Protestants as being the result of not having a infallible magisterium. But RCs do not have an infallible interpreter for their supreme authority any more than we do for ours.

A problem is that much of Catholic teaching is subject to interpretation. Even what is "erroneous theological opinions" is a matter of judgment based upon understanding of "authoritative" RC teaching, yet not only what that is and what magisterial level a teaching falls under - and thus the assurance of its veracity (and also the allowance of dissent) - is subject to interpretation, but the understand of them can be also.

One example is the Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus decree of Boniface 8 which is held by most as part of infallible teaching, but its meaning is understood different and conflicting ways, or without precision.

In such cases RCs look to lower levels of the magisterium, but which can itself be unclear, and or their level of authority is debated if it seems to vary from what the higher level says.

The RC thus also looks to other sources, from church fathers and saints to local priests and RC apologists, but they may err, and so the diligent weigh what they say against what other things says.

Of course is this not as manifest as it is among Pros who are more committed to doctrinal purity, and in fact it is among those RCs who are most committed to that which sees the sharpest divisions.

Even when Rome proceeds to interpret itself then it can result in more problems than it solves.

As one poster wryly complained,

The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html

All this reality is contrary to the simple picture painted by others, while what is exhorted by Rome is submission to her even if in error. p>

Back to Therese, I had looked for another source for that quote and all i found was ( St. Catherine of Siena: A Biography By Anne B. Baldwin, p. 125. But it is similar to [Error condemned] If a pope is foreknown as damned and is evil, and is therefore a limb of the devil, he does not have authority over the faithful given to him by anyone, except perhaps by the emperor. Council of Constance, Condemnation of Errors, against Wycliffe, Session VIII , and Hus: Session XV; DNZ:621, 617, 588)

And popes do place significant weight upon such docs, though again, what is sound can require investigation and interpretation.

Indeed, when the Magisterium proclaims someone a doctor of the Church, it intends to point out to all the faithful,...that the doctrine professed and proclaimed by a certain person can be a reference point, not only because it conforms to revealed truth , but also because it sheds new light on the mysteries of the faith, a deeper understanding of Christ's mystery.

The Council reminded us that, with the help of the Holy Spirit, understanding of the "depositum fidei" continually grows in the Church... Lumen gentium, for its part, teaches that God himself "speaks to us" (n. 50) in his saints...her writings are so vast and profound that they deserve a place among the great spiritual masters..- PROCLAMATION OF ST THÉRÈSE OF THE CHILD JESUS AND THE HOLY FACE AS A "DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH" HOMILY OF POPE JOHN PAUL II Sunday, 19 October 1997

[daniel1212]

The idea that some writings were always present (in the sense of canonical) until Luther questioned them is utter nonsense,

I had just said to someone in a post above,

Thus the idea that Rome simply forbade reading Prot. translations and did not otherwise hinder personal searching of the Scriptures is a fantasy, like as of imagining that Luther was a maverick among Catholics in the 16th century in rejecting some books as as being Scripture proper, and did not include them in his Bible, and dissented from an infallibly defined canon.

And right on cue..

[Mark17]

One statement that stood out was one made by Pope Boniface VIII where he says to have salvation, every one has to be subject to the pope. Unbelievable. They do not think Jesus is enough.

Mama, does Galatians 1:8 ring a bell? It is another Gospel Mama, it is another Gospel, and you know what Paul said about another Gospel. No reason to sugar coat it is there? 😄

[daniel1212]

Saw this FR link yesterday: Literacy in the Time of Jesus - Could His Words Have Been Recorded in His Lifetime?

[Mrs. Don-o]

There have been two examples of properly-defined papal infallible statements in the past 200 years ---or three, if you include the declaration on infallibility itself.

It seems like I'm looking into the distortions of a fun-house mirror, where the word "infallible" is stitched on the smallest pocket of my cargo pants, but in the mirror, INFALLIBLE covers me all over from my boot-heels to my hat.

The problem is with stretching a concept to cover too much, and then saying the image is absurd. It is absurd. The image is absurd --- but that's not what infallibility is.

I would dearly love to get into a good discussion on the Ordinary Magisterium, which is a heap more important --- but I suspect the discussion would be literally impossible on this forum. In act, I'm sure it would be.

(((Sigh))))

[MamaB]

Yes, it does. Thanks. I just do not understand how anyone can claim salvation by being a member of a certain group. It just does not compute.

[Mrs. Don-o]

5971

You, too.

Time for a late supper for me. Back to you tomorrow, maybe, and Good Night!

[MamaB]

Is anyone making you read these? If not, just ignore them like I do other threads. Some like to be informed. I have learned so much from them.

[daniel1212]

LOL, do I have to? Isn't there enough snake oil on this thread already

Well, i hear the serpent saying, "Hath not God said..."

[metmom]

Well, then the Catholic church is in no better position than any *Prot* church.

If there is such a narrowly and rigidly defined criteria of what is infallible, and everything else outside of it is allowed fallibility, and therefore, subject to interpretation and acceptance and rejection based on that private interpretation, then they are in no better position than Catholics accuse and condemn Prots over.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Actually, not quite. The real juice is the Ordinary Magisterium.

What's that? Basically what's in the Caechism of the Catholic Church. That's the day-to-day core, kernel, nubbin of the Faith in terms of our adherence to Christ, our understanding of Scripture, stable doctrine on faith and morals, Hermeneutic of Continuity (free of ephemeral innovations and theological fads) and so forth.

It's actually quite a good document. Comprehensive, internally coherent, and readable. Readable. Surprisingly so.

Now if certain CARDINALS and BISHOPS could be persuaded to teach and govern (maintain discipline) on the basis of the Ordinary Magisterium, we'd be in good shape.

Even you'd like what you'd see!

[terycarl]

Sources for all your claims, please...... Do you have ANYTHING to back them up?

a basic knowledge of history and a lot of common sense goes a long way.....

[af_vet_1981]

When does the door close?

I'm uncertain which question you refer to. Is a general question to the Canon, and when scholarship and archaeology should end in searching for the Holy Grail, the original manuscripts ? I'll posit a case. What would happen were a close to original copy of a Gospel of the Hebrews were discovered in a cave ?

Would it be added to the Bible ? The only criteria I can readily think of are
1. It be sourced to the Jewish people, oracles of God, so to speak
2. It not add to the text of the book of Revelation
3. It be confirmed to be scripture by the holy catholic apostolic church as authentic and not in conflict with truth.

Does this answer your question ?

[terycarl]

You are correct sir. I am living proof. I figure that they did not want to lose control of the people, because it would affect their bottom line.

the Catholic church has plenty of money....that little ministry started in 1933 might, on the other hand, draw people in with various claims and questionable "facts" to....perhaps entice them to give them a buck or two.......maybe...They have everything to gain and nothing to lose....kind of like the T.V "evangalists"...