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.

[CynicalBear]

>> if the meal of the Eucharist were allegorical and not really His body, Jesus would have told his disciples so, rather than losing them.<<

He did but evidently Catholics don't believe it.

[rwa265]

My understanding from reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church is that Mary will intercede for us, but also that Jesus ALWAYS adheres to the will of the Father. In other words, if an intercession from Mary is in accord with the will of the Father, Jesus may grant it. If not, Jesus will not grant it.

Can you show me anything in the Catechism that contradicts this? That says Jesus will grant an intercession from Mary contrary to the will of the Father?

[af_vet_1981]

As for who loved Him the most, the text does not say it was Peter. That is imagination, not fact. There is no need to imagine in Peter some exalted quality of person befitting the exalted role which Rome posthumously assigned him. When Peter was being restored by Jesus, he was asked to declare his love for Jesus three times, which corresponded to the three denials. Peter's love failed when tested against his instinct for survival, though John remained faithful. Jesus had to heal him of that very damaging experience. But that in no way demonstrates in Peter a love greater than that found in John or any other particular disciple. They all loved Jesus, and history would show they were all, including Peter, willing at the end to love Him unto death. But no. The Petrine office is a fiction, and well suited to justify Rome's coalescing around the monarchical episcopate centuries later. It has no basis, either in Scripture, or in the first few centuries of the life of the Ecclesia.

While it is interesting you make reference to the sacrament of reconciliation, afterAs for who loved Him the most, the text does not say it was Peter. That is imagination, not fact. There is no need to imagine in Peter some exalted quality of person befitting the exalted role which Rome posthumously assigned him. When Peter was being restored by Jesus, he was asked to declare his love for Jesus three times, which corresponded to the three denials. Peter's love failed when tested against his instinct for survival, though John remained faithful. Jesus had to heal him of that very damaging experience. But that in no way demonstrates in Peter a love greater than that found in John or any other particular disciple. They all loved Jesus, and history would show they were all, including Peter, willing at the end to love Him unto death. But no. The Petrine office is a fiction, and well suited to justify Rome's coalescing around the monarchical episcopate centuries later. It has no basis, either in Scripture, or in the first few centuries of the life of the Ecclesia. a manner, but this was no reconciliation between the LORD and Peter, it was a confirmation of Peter's leadership. Messiah had already appeared to Peter twice and breathed the Holy Spirit on him. Messiah confirmed the apostolic mandate to forgive sins as His representatives. I read the scriptures and find this was the third time the risen Messiah appeared to the Apostles. I note the first recorded time was to Mary Magdelene who went straight to Peter first. I note Peter was the only one of the Twelve, that when he heard the LORD, cast himself into the sea so as to reach him straight way while the others took a boat in. Wherefore my sentence is that the LORD Jesus Christ publicly asked him in front of the others and when Peter affirmed he loved Him and He knew that, the LORD confirmed his leadership among the Apostles with a commission to feed His sheep and submit to martyrdom by crucifixion. The apostle to the Gentiles called Peter, and no other Apostle, the Apostle to the Circumcision. Both had a special servant leader role given to them by the LORD Jesus Christ. Both died as martyrs in Rome and their bodies are buried there to this day.

[Resettozero]

Sorry to bore you with all of that, but I thought I should answer you more thoughtfully than flippantly.

Not at all. Thank you.

The best way to know the Truth is through knowing God personally. The Only Way for us sinful people to be reconciled to Holy God is via accepting His only begotten Son (Jesus of Nazareth) as Lord of all His creation.

When you genuinely repent of all your own false ideas (the sinful deeds) and, as a trusting child, come to the Cross in total dependance on what God has begun and finished in your behalf, God will reveal Himself to you in an undeniably unique way (new birth as a new person in Christ) that cannot be manufactured by men or any religion: through faith in the person of His Son Lord Jesus Christ as our only Savior from all our sins and thus from the second death.

One outward sign that the new birth has indeed occurred is that you will come literally to HATE all the lying crap you have eaten up over the years. You will have a new love and strong desire for the Truth in every matter and will be given a Comforting Instructor who will lead you always to become Christ-like, step by faithful step.

You will find that the smartest things, the most intriquing things man has ever written and done, pale to dim outlines against the vivid, spontaneous, living Word of God in the foreground...Jesus is really alive right now and God has sent the Holy Spirit to comfort and instruct us in all His righteousness.

Without maintaining believing, saving faith in Jesus, especially in times of great hurt and pain, the words of the Holy Bible will in large part remain veiled to you (Jesus spoke in parables), just as the written Word is still veiled to the devil's comprehension even though he has memorized and can quote much of the Scriptures...but wrongly...and only to deceive and destroy God's favorite creation that God loves the most; namely...us...you...me...mankind.

The books and writings that formerly titillated your imagination, will be consigned either to Goodwill or the trash can or perhaps, as in my case, to a campfire. Wow; that fire really stank!

[af_vet_1981]

Ignore error splice in previous post.

As for who loved Him the most, the text does not say it was Peter. That is imagination, not fact. There is no need to imagine in Peter some exalted quality of person befitting the exalted role which Rome posthumously assigned him. When Peter was being restored by Jesus, he was asked to declare his love for Jesus three times, which corresponded to the three denials. Peter's love failed when tested against his instinct for survival, though John remained faithful. Jesus had to heal him of that very damaging experience. But that in no way demonstrates in Peter a love greater than that found in John or any other particular disciple. They all loved Jesus, and history would show they were all, including Peter, willing at the end to love Him unto death. But no. The Petrine office is a fiction, and well suited to justify Rome's coalescing around the monarchical episcopate centuries later. It has no basis, either in Scripture, or in the first few centuries of the life of the Ecclesia.

While it is interesting you make reference to the sacrament of reconciliation, after a manner, but this was no reconciliation between the LORD and Peter, it was a confirmation of Peter's leadership. Messiah had already appeared to Peter twice and breathed the Holy Spirit on him. Messiah confirmed the apostolic mandate to forgive sins as His representatives. I read the scriptures and find this was the third time the risen Messiah appeared to the Apostles. I note the first recorded time was to Mary Magdelene who went straight to Peter first. I note Peter was the only one of the Twelve, that when he heard the LORD, cast himself into the sea so as to reach him straight way while the others took a boat in. Wherefore my sentence is that the LORD Jesus Christ publicly asked him in front of the others and when Peter affirmed he loved Him and He knew that, the LORD confirmed his leadership among the Apostles with a commission to feed His sheep and submit to martyrdom by crucifixion. The apostle to the Gentiles called Peter, and no other Apostle, the Apostle to the Circumcision. Both had a special servant leader role given to them by the LORD Jesus Christ. Both died as martyrs in Rome and their bodies are buried there to this day.

As for John, you know the scripture cannot be broken, and his testing was not the same as Peter's. Perhaps it was a matter of watching and works of faith and love. The LORD did not explain other than to say all if the Apostles would be offended and scatter that night. It seems to me John recovered first and rejoined Mary, the mother of Jesus, of God with us, at the cross. Hence the power of works of love.

[af_vet_1981]

The keys are defined as the power of binding and loosing, which is what keys do, so it make sense. But then it also means the keys are not unique to Peter, since, as you concede, all apostles were given that gift of binding and loosing.

There is only one Klal Yisroel. There is only one holy catholic apostolic church. It is not along the lines if the rulers of the Gentiles. You have in them the law of the ruler and occasionally the rule of law which they corrupt. Messiah prayed the Apostles into unity. They heard and obeyed. Messiah prayed those who would believe on Him through their word, that we may all be one. Instead I come here to find a carnival, of sorts.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Plain meaning” is not necessarily literal meaning.”

We will disagree. The only thing is actual meaning, which involves more than isolated, translated words.

“In contrast, when Jesus says “this bread is my body” there is not allegory present: he adds “do this” in Luke 22:19 and is John 6”

I thought we set this aside until you post a thread on the passage? If you want to discuss it, post it.

“Likewise in James 2 there is nothing allegorical: several historical persons are mentioned with their works and their faith, the fact that faith is “dead” without works is asserted, and a direct statement is made “Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?” This is not allegorical speech, except perhaps “dead faith” is a metaphor for faith which does not save.”

I thought we decided to set this aside until you post a thread about it??

“This goes beyond the thread topic and would require a whole thread of its own to examine”

“That is because when a Protestant faces these scriptural facts his method is to offer megabytes of obfuscatory pseudo-reasoning to bury the scriptural fact in. No it does nto require a whole thread. The Holy Spirit expressed these two ideas in a few easy to understand sentences. The Eucharist is Christ’s body. We are not saved by faith alone. Scriptural facts.”

I understand you are a Roman Catholic and must believe what you’ve been taught. You have no choice. Please realize that hundreds of millions of Christians, who have no such limitation, disagree:

1. that the Lord’s Supper is actually Christ’s body.
2. that salvation hinges on works.
3. that your Scriptural facts are accurate and not just opinions.

Best.

PS - at least you didn’t dig up Luther and bring him into the conversation.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“”faith without works is dead” and that is the conclusion of the chapter. “

Any faith that doesn’t result in works is a dead faith. Works confirm in sight saving faith. They do not save.

Have you made that outline of the Book of James yet? It would be very useful to you.

Best.

[Resettozero]

Instead I come here to find a carnival, of sorts.

Looks like we're gonna need more sawdust.

[redleghunter]

The hearers taught in the Scriptures ought to test what is said by teachers and accept that which agrees with the Scriptures but reject that which is foreign. [Basil, Moralia, 72:1.]

And above is the closest quote which affirms the Reformers understanding of "Sola Scriptura."

[af_vet_1981]

Well, in the post in question, I'm not trying to resolve whether Baptist successionism is any better than Catholic successionism. I think they both have severe problems. My point was only that if a Baptist sauntered in with a list of names claiming apostolic succession, no one, not even I, as a Baptist, would consider that much of an argument. It's right to demand hard, historical evidence of such a claim. That's why the Lampe study and others like it are so important. If succession happened the way Rome has proposed it to have happened, there should be a signature in real data. There isn't. That's a problem.

That is the point. We walk by faith, not by sight. We do not have all the burned scriptures, commentaries, and records. By the grace of God we have what evidence we have. Either one has faith in the LORD Jesus Christ who building His church on Peter and the other Jewish Apostles and Prophets, Himself being the chief cornerstone, that church which the gates of hell will not prevail against, or one does not.

[Resettozero]

Either one has faith in the LORD Jesus Christ who building His church on Peter and the other Jewish Apostles and Prophets, Himself being the chief cornerstone, that church which the gates of hell will not prevail against, or one does not.

Better yet:

Either one has faith in the LORD Jesus Christ or one does not.

Do we agree on this much?

[GBA]

Without maintaining believing, saving faith in Jesus, especially in times of great hurt and pain, the words of the Holy Bible will in large part remain veiled to you (Jesus spoke in parables), just as the written Word is still veiled to the devil's comprehension even though he has memorized and can quote much of the Scriptures...but wrongly...and only to deceive and destroy God's favorite creation that God loves the most; namely...us...you...me...mankind.

This truth is a constant source of fascination and concern for me and perhaps the main reason I've avoided organized religion.

My sense, based upon experience, is that the more "high info" types somehow get damaged by their accumulated knowledge. Thus damaged, they take a great deal of pride in "their" interpretations and will do battle any time, anywhere to fight that they're right.

To me, this appears to be one of Satan's traps. Divide and conquer has always worked very well and the collaterally damaged by these warriors tend to avoid whatever it is they're fighting about, making the strategy extremely effective overall.

I know I've read inconvenient Scripture that tells us not to do this, but hey, "It's a WAR!", right?

Oh well...what do I know? I can usually find value in a Joel Osteen sermon, a fact which no doubt labels me and my spirit as being hopelessly lost.

I'm okay with that, too.

[Kackikat]

I go by the scripture,and the First Commandment. Jesus came to redeem us from the curse of the law, but that was Jewish ceremonial law. The Ten Commandments will always be God’s Commandments...we just are circumcised in our hearts in NT.

I respect Mary as Jesus mother, but she is not to be an idol...or worshiped.

I like Joel Osteen, and I pay zero attention to the naysayers about him or other Ministers who love God. Why? They criticize anyone they don’t like...I guess they won’t like the mansion God has for them, it’ll be too big, too small, or not decorated right. Meantime, we are to glean what God gives us from those who are teaching, encouraging, and preaching truth.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

[af_vet_1981]

Either one has faith in the LORD Jesus Christ or one does not. Do we agree on this much?

Yes, Catholics agree with Protestants on this much, hence the Catechism :

425 The transmission of the Christian faith consists primarily in proclaiming Jesus Christ in order to lead others to faith in him. From the beginning, the first disciples burned with the desire to proclaim Christ: "We cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard."'11 And they invite people of every era to enter into the joy of their communion with Christ:

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life - the life was made manifest, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was made manifest to us- that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. And we are writing this that our joy may be complete.12

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271 818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

Toward unity

820 "Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time."277 Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: "That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me."278 The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.279

[GBA]

Thanks and Merry Christmas to you, too!

At this point in my education, I see Mary as being a supporting character in the larger story.

Jesus is the story, not Mary. However, based upon what I've read so far, and the events and sightings around the world, I believe she is busy, as I read in TLIG, helping us with our prayers and preparing the world for His return and also believe that she has a role in the end times as described in Revelation.

To me, whatever Mary is, all that she is comes from the Father, so in my ignorance I'm not going to disparage or denigrate her, nor those who understand her better than I do. Those who do make me worry about them. Silly me.

Bottom line, I think she's part of the Holy Family and His Plan and, like I said earlier, beyond my rational understanding. Ymmv, of course.

So...I'll just remain grateful for all done on our behalf. We humans need all the help we can get!

[Resettozero]

I can usually find value in a Joel Osteen sermon, a fact which no doubt labels me and my spirit as being hopelessly lost.

Next time, instead of digesting JO's pablum, try something you can sink your teeth into:

Charles Stanley, Atlanta 1st Baptist

Suggest you click first on the link (down the page a little) for Sunday, October 26, 2014...or start anywhere you choose:

The Two Paths of Life -- "In this message, Dr. Stanley poses a number of questions we should ask ourselves before choosing a path. Jesus says there are only two ways to live. We can walk the godly and righteous path or the path that leads to disappointment and destruction. If we want to get on the right path, we have to place our trust in Christ as the crucified Savior, ask God to forgive us of our sins, and surrender our lives to Him."

GBA, if you don't think he's telling you the Truth, then neither will you find the Truth only through watching/reading/listening to JO.

It's well worth a shot, if you are willing to listen.

[rwa265]

Either one has faith in the LORD Jesus Christ or one does not.

Do we agree on this much?

---

We can agree on so much more than this.

My Mom and Dad were a wonderful example of how a Methodist and Catholic could live in harmony. While they did not agree on everything, they were fully supportive of each other’s beliefs. Dad became ordained as a Deacon in the Catholic Church. That could not have happened without Mom’s full participation and support. Mom was very involved in her local church, the greater United Methodist Church, and Church Women United. Mom was well known and loved at Dad’s church, and Dad was well known and loved at Mom’s church, to the point where he led Bible studies there. They joked that Dad was a Cathodist and Mom was a Metholic.

One day when I was in high school, I told Dad that I was praying that Mom would become a Catholic like us. He told me that I should hope and pray that I could become as good a Christian as Mom.

[Resettozero]

"Either one has faith in the LORD Jesus Christ or one does not."

Do we agree on this much?

Yes, Catholics agree with Protestants on this much...

I was asking you only if YOU indeed agree with the quoted statement. Meaning without additions or qualifications.

(Again, yea verily, vet...I am not a member of any Protestant congregation of believers in Lord Jesus Christ.)

[xzins]

How did she know He was a miracle worker?

She was a virgin and became pregnant with Him.