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.

[ealgeone]

Where did you get all those quotes about mary? I'd love the source.

[af_vet_1981]

Faith in God, not man. If some man comes to me and says, Christ is here, or there, or in some secret chamber (a monstrance perhaps), does Christ allow me to believe them? Doesn't John say test the spirits? Doesn't Paul commend the Bereans for fact-checking ... Paul? Fact check an Apostle?? Yes!!

1. Faith in the LORD Jesus Christ that he left a visible, historic, real, holy catholic apostolic church that reaches to the ends of the earth since his resurrection. That is not faith in men but rather faith in God.
2. Yes, John does, which is one more reason to ask people about their affiliations as you weigh their comments.
3. No, Paul does not commend the Bereans for fact checking. Perhaps you are thinking about the Romans whose faith was spoken if throughout the whole world. Luke tells us the Bereans Jews were more noble than the Thessalonican Jews because they had willing minds to receive the word that Paul preached. Their searching the scriptures daily to see if those things were so added nothing to Paul's gospel, that Messiah needed to suffer and rise from the dead (Isaiah), and Yeshua is Messiah (Apostolic witness). It was a sign they were ready to receive the truth rather than contend with it. We could contrast their behavior with that of others who claim the name Bereans but use their studies to contend against the truth. Paul told the truth. Searching the scriptures daily and fact checking does not make one able to receive the word else we would have another million Jews on fire for Messiach tomorrow.

[xone]

Can a Catholic in the course of normal human events gain salvation while rejecting Catholic dogma? If not, then the Catholic church imposes greater requirements for salvation than the Lord Himself.

[CynicalBear]

Do you think Jesus fully man or not?

[CynicalBear]

>>Mary is mother of the incarnate, 2d Person of the Trinity.<<

Define mother as you use it there.

[xzins]

Same as your mother. She gave birth to Jesus who at that point was the incarnate, 2d person of the Trinity.

Of course Jesus was fully man, but He was also fully God.

So, I’ve answered. Now it’s your turn.

Do you think Jesus was fully God when He walked on this earth, or do you think He was not?

[af_vet_1981]

And what has God given us? His word. That's where the fact-checking must find it's firm basis. Everything else is quicksand.

Show me where the LORD Jesus Christ told us He was building a Bible, KJV or otherwise, for us to study and individually figure out what is truth and what is error. The closest to it I see is his prayer for those that would believe in Him through the word of His apostles, that they would be in unity. That could be oral or written. It does not require a Bible, not original complete error free manuscripts. It does not require perfect translations. I see a carnival of thousands of denominations, sects, groups, and cults with their personal interpretations and personal savior. He prayed that we who believe (and obey) Him would be in unity. That is not some personal option. It is our calling from Him.

He did promise to build a church that would prevail against the gates of hell. I don't see any original manuscripts, Hebrew or otherwise.

[Springfield Reformer]

Faith in the LORD Jesus Christ that he left a visible, historic, real, holy catholic apostolic church that reaches to the ends of the earth since his resurrection. That is not faith in men but rather faith in God.

The Ecclesia Jesus is building is defined by Him, not by you or I.   Whereas that line you provide is a rich study of denominationally charged assumptions and definitions, all evolved over centuries of use by the denomination they are designed to serve, the authority for which derives from a historical argument that can't be defended. No sir, my faith is not in uninspired, and provably inaccurate lists of supposed popes.  

Do you see the circularity here?  Should I by faith accept the words of men, so that I may know the words of God, when I already have the words of God, which reveal the falsity of those words of men?  By God's grace, not in a million years.  

Yes, John does, which is one more reason to ask people about their affiliations as you weigh their comments.

Affiliations are but a fraction of the analysis.  In some cases they can be misleading.  You find someone is a Baptist and think, OK, I know where he's coming from.  Then you find out he's also a high degree mason and is cuddly with all the wrong people.  It happens.  I think a much better test is to find out what people actually believe and teach. A hundred years ago, the paper confessions had more meaning.  These days you just don't know until you have the conversation. I'm talking Baptist, Reformed, Lutheran, Catholic, etc.  

I keep mentioning my relatives up north, but why not mention them again, as it pertains.  They are Catholics in good standing and they favor abortion and the elevation of Mary to coequal status with Jesus as a matter of feminist social justice.  Would I get that from the CCC?  Nope.  You don't really know where someone is coming from until you dig past the superficial affiliations. I'm sorry it's not simple and easy.  I'd like it to be simple and easy, because that appeals to me.  But it's not the way it is.  John didn't say test the spirits by asking them for their denominational passcard.  

No, Paul does not commend the Bereans for fact checking. Perhaps you are thinking about the Romans whose faith was spoken if throughout the whole world. Luke tells us the Bereans Jews were more noble than the Thessalonican Jews because they had willing minds to receive the word that Paul preached.

You are right that it was Luke and not Paul directly commending the Bereans.  An error of haste on my part.  But it presses credulity to deny that fact-checking was an inherent part of their active response to the Gospel.  Yes, they were willing to receive it, but not without validation.  There were many schools of thought selling their wares, just as now in many ways.  They were commended both for their willingness to believe the truth, as you point out, and in the same breath for their willingness to validate that message against the revelation they had already accepted, Scripture.  Why? Because both properties flow from the same spiring, a deep love for God and an unwilling to either ignore His truth or let it be corrupted by falsehood.  It doen't matter how good your offense is if you don't have a defense.

Their searching the scriptures daily to see if those things were so added nothing to Paul's gospel, that Messiah needed to suffer and rise from the dead (Isaiah), and Yeshua is Messiah (Apostolic witness). It was a sign they were ready to receive the truth rather than contend with it. We could contrast their behavior with that of others who claim the name Bereans but use their studies to contend against the truth. Paul told the truth. Searching the scriptures daily and fact checking does not make one able to receive the word else we would have another million Jews on fire for Messiach tomorrow.

I never said or remotely hinted that fact-checking adds any content to the Gospel.  I have no idea how you got to that thought.  Fact checking does the opposite.  It prevents theological vandals from defacing the Gospel by foisting on the unwary information not found in God's own presentation of the Gospel.  And true, fact-checking doesn't save souls.  Believing God's word does.  But fact checking is part of the duty schedule for serious Christians.  It just goes with the territory.  There is a deceiver in the world and we must be on guard.  Again, I'm sorry that's the way it is, and someday we won't have to worry about such things.  For now, we do.

So if someone comes along and says, "believe my list of names and you shall know the truth,"  I'm going to want those facts checked.  I don't want to get caught short on that day having sold my birthright for a lousy list of names.

Peace,

SR

[Dutchboy88]

"If accurate, those are troublesome comments from some ancient people."

Well, you are welcome to check the sources. But, this seems to be a common view amongst those honored by Rome. And, tragically, it appears their view of Mary is closer to a "God-like" status than many around here thought.

[CynicalBear]

>>Do you think Jesus was fully God when He walked on this earth<<

Of course He was fully God. That does not make Mary the mother of His deity. Those who claim she is "mother of God" claim to know more about the mystery of the incarnation than is found in scripture.

[Dutchboy88]

Check “St.” Alphonsus de Liguori, The Glories of Mary (Redemptrist Fathers, 1931), pp 161, 162, 166-167, 170, 237 - 243. Sadly for him, the Scriptures assigns the term “saint” to every believer, not those Rome canonizes. But, Rome has manufactured its own religion.

[af_vet_1981]

Check “St.” Alphonsus de Liguori, The Glories of Mary (Redemptrist Fathers, 1931), pp 161, 162, 166-167, 170, 237 - 243. Sadly for him, the Scriptures assigns the term “saint” to every believer, not those Rome canonizes. But, Rome has manufactured its own religion.

Which denomination, sect, or faith group do you assemble with on Sundays ?

[af_vet_1981]

>>Do you think Jesus was fully God when He walked on this earth<< Of course He was fully God. That does not make Mary the mother of His deity. Those who claim she is "mother of God" claim to know more about the mystery of the incarnation than is found in scripture.

False. For those who receive the word with all readiness of mind, Miriam is the mother of God with us.

[xzins]

She was the mother of the incarnate, 2d person of the Trinity. He existed as the pre-incarate 2d person of the Trinity, and she was not the mother of the pre-incarnate person. After all, He predated her.

But there is no denying she was the mother of the incarnate Son of God. So, when the question comes up, I always emphasize the incarnation to be absolutely clear.

[Dutchboy88]

"Which denomination, sect, or faith group do you assemble with on Sundays ?"

As you may notice around here, many of the believers in Jesus Christ, alone, gather with fellow believers in the same way the first century congregations used to. That is, if you check Acts 2:42 (in spite of the fact there were no Chap./verse designations in the original texts) there was no "name" needed for the gatherings who simply, "...devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, the breaking of bread and prayer." Is that a sufficient identification?

[CynicalBear]

>>She was the mother of the incarnate<<

No one has ever said that she wasn't the mother of Jesus.

[af_vet_1981]

But it presses credulity to deny that fact-checking was an inherent part of their active response to the Gospel.

I see it as after the fact, edifying the believing heart. Where in the parables is this fact checking ? I see a scribe instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like a man which brings forth out of his treasure both new and old. I see disciples on the road to Emmaus who have a blessed encounter with Messiah who taught them everything about Himself from the scriptures. Halleluyah ! I want to be a hiker to Emmaus more than a Berean.

[xzins]

Only in the sense of mothering the incarnate 2nd person of the trinity is there a logical connection to using the appellation “mother of God”. Because of that, I tend to overlook it. If pressed on it, I try to distinguish between the incarnation and pre-incarnation.

[CynicalBear]

Mary wasn’t even important enough for anyone to even keep track of where she spent her last days or where she died. Not one word was written about her after Pentecost.

[af_vet_1981]

As you may notice around here, many of the believers in Jesus Christ, alone, gather with fellow believers in the same way the first century congregations used to. That is, if you check Acts 2:42 (in spite of the fact there were no Chap./verse designations in the original texts) there was no "name" needed for the gatherings who simply, "...devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, the breaking of bread and prayer." Is that a sufficient identification?

No
1. Which general faith group first baptized you in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ?
2. Which general faith group do or did you last regularly assemble with, tithe to, and accept spiritual authority from at an elder/presbyter/bishop level ?