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]

Ealgeone: >what is this belief based on?<

Annalex: >The belief in the immaculate conception is a longstanding belief of the Church that was elevated into dogma in 19 Century. It is based on that: the ancient belief.

It is just that....a belief. Without any scriptural support.

So if the pope says pigs can fly, we should just run with it???

However, the scripture suggest something like this: the angel called Mary "full of grace" (κεχαριτωμενη). Now that word is interesting. It is a past-perfect passive tense (who had been given grace).

Do you understand the significance of this perfect participle middle/passive in the Greek?

You do understand the catholic bible has this translated wrong? It should be translated as "favored one", or "you favored with grace."

So what other significant event in the life of Mary prior to the Annunciation was there?

She grew up in a household that believed the OT and understood it as evidenced by her praise to God in Luke 1.

She was married to a righteous man named Joseph. That's a pretty big event in anyone's life.

Do catholics also think Joseph was sinless also??

Nothing except her conception.

Proven incorrect as noted above.

So it is a reasonable conjecture that she had been filled with grace since conception.

So we get to the point...it's a feeling...a hope...a wish.

It is also just as reasonable, actually, even more reasonable to conclude she was not "filled with grace", even though that is the wrong translation of the verb.

Check out the significance of the perfect tense in Kione Greek and let me know what you find out.

[annalex]

I stand by my post and I commented many times on this thread why.

[annalex]

Other than this good work, what good works does the RCC teach are ALSO required for eternal salvation...?

Matthew 25:31-46 enumerates many. Any work of love and self-denial is what makes the faith perfect (James 2:22)

[boatbums]

MANY ARE CALLED...FEW ARE CHOSEN....it is very sad to know that anyone gave up the true church of Christ to try salvation on their own....very sad

Oh, is that the church which boasts it has 2 Billion members? Doesn't sound to me like the "few chosen" are found there. And what TRULY would be very sad is if someone STAYED in a church they were baptized into as a baby and NEVER accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior because they thought they only had to do what they were told and "be good" and they would make it to heaven.

[af_vet_1981]

Now I realize no Catholic can be too fond of that answer. It implies private judgment, and even views it as a good thing. Which of course it is. It's even a necessity. It's how people come to believe new things. The Emmaus hiker has already crossed that Rubicon. But he did cross it. At some earlier point, he already committed an act of private judgment. It's how he became a believer in the first place.

The view you present is the opposite of the tradition of Fundamentalist and Evangelical born again experiences and much closer to the Catholic persuasion model, so to speak. You must have noticed that.

Thomas on the other hand admits up front he's not there yet. Like the Bereans, he sets a reasonable condition, corroborating evidence. Does Jesus reprimand him for desiring evidence? Or does Jesus offer him the evidence he seeks?

I think it erroneous to project that view to the Apostles as they were living in real time. They were already believers, already sheep, save Judas who was lost. The Resurrection had just happened. The Holy Spirit had not, for lack of a better phrase, traded places with Messiah yet. The Apostle Thomas is a wonderful lesson to those that believe, but not to an unbeliever looking for an excuse to insist on evidence rather than faith.

[annalex]

You’re still down in the 2600 block of posts

I am sorry. On a thread like this I get 20-30 posts daily. I am trying to respond to those that have substance. I also have a job and a family, and cannot go any faster. But eventually, I catch up.

Speaking of which, it is time for Annalex's late dinner.

[ealgeone]

Your post 3083.....how many good works must you do? How do you know you’ve done enough? Or even the right ones for that matter??

[terycarl]

we will continue to refute the false gospel presented incessantly by the Roman Catholic cabal on FreeRepublic, soundly, with Scripture, as lead by the Holy Spirit.

isn't it absolutely amazing that the Holy Spirit influenced and guided the Catholic church for one thousand six hundred years before even the first protestant was born....suddenly, you, a person of perhaps 50-60 years of age, decides that you can better interpret what Christ meant when He established His church, than could the original Apostles......Good luck with that theory.

[terycarl]

And it wasn't an illiterate era. Jesus and other males read from the Torah in the synagogue. Teyve said he started school at 3 years old.

[ealgeone]

You gonna answer post 3075?

[terycarl]

And Rome teaches that He STILL obeys His mommy.

obeys?, probably no longer necessary, but disrespects as you do...NEVER.

[terycarl]

He did but evidently Catholics don't believe it.

no He didn't

[boatbums]

The "sloppy" work is found in the various and sundry doctrines that the Roman Catholic church changed over the centuries. At one time, justification by faith WAS a tenet of the Christian faith. At one time, the idea of a Pontifex Maximus - one head bishop called Pope would be in authority over all other bishops and all of Christendom must bow in obedience to whatever he decreed - was seen as heresy. At one time, it was Peter's faith in Christ which was recognized as the foundation of the church, the body of Christ, and not the fallible man Peter - much less everyone that might come after him automatically inheriting his Apostolic authority. At one time, there WAS no belief in a pretend place called Purgatory or even Limbo. At one time, NOBODY prayed to dead saints. I could go on and on.

Catholic polemicists sloppily IGNORE the beliefs of early church "fathers" that show what was commonly held as orthodox faith when it doesn't serve their current dogmas and any appeal to the "unanimous consent of the fathers" is sheepishly brushed off as a nice-to-have but no longer a determining factor in newly developed doctrines. Like you do here in only addressing Chrysostom and his view about baptism but ignoring what he said about the Scriptures. Sidestepping and ignoring all the others. No, RCs HAVE TO dispute Scriptural authority because they KNOW their obligatory dogmas are not verifiable from the word of God. They appeal to "Tradition" as equal in authority, but cannot prove such beliefs were either taught by the Apostles or believed by the early Christians. Truth, to RCs, becomes whatever the Pope/Magesterium says is the truth. It's why Tradition and the Magesterium have to be viewed as all equal in authority. Sorry, but Divinely-inspired Scripture - as GOD'S word to us - is our TRUE authority and this basic truth was believed and defended by the Apostles as well as their disciples, whom they trained up in the truth so that they could faithfully teach others.

If Roman Catholicism was A true church, they wouldn't have to disparage the Holy Scriptures. They would eagerly appeal to the word of God to prove what they say is the truth - just like the early church fathers did. They would AGREE with saints like Irenaeus who stated in his book, Against Heresies:

Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him.

Our faith is steadfast, unfeigned, and the only true one, having clear proof from these Scriptures.

In the first place, we prove from the authoritative Scriptures that all the things which have been mentioned, visible and invisible, have been made by one God. For these men are not more to be depended on than the Scriptures.

If, therefore, even with respect to creation, there are some things [the knowledge of] which belongs only to God, and others which come within the range of our own knowledge, what ground is there for complaint, if, in regard to those things which we investigate in the Scriptures (which are throughout spiritual), we are able by the grace of God to explain some of them, while we must leave others in the hands of God, and that not only in the present world, but also in that which is to come, so that God should for ever teach, and man should for ever learn the things taught him by God?...If, for instance, any one asks, ‘What was God doing before He made the world?’ we reply that the answer to such a question lies with God Himself. For that this world was formed perfect by God, receiving a beginning in time, the Scriptures teach us; but no Scripture reveals to us what God was employed about before this event. The answer therefore to that question remains with God, and it is not proper for us to aim at bringing forward foolish, rash, and blasphemous suppositions [in reply to it]; so, as by one’s imagining that he has discovered the origin of matter, he should in reality set aside God Himself who made all things. But we shall not be wrong if we affirm the same thing also concerning the substance of matter, that God produced it. For we have learned from the Scriptures that God holds the supremacy over all things. But whence or in what way He produced it, neither has Scripture anywhere declared; nor does it become us to conjecture, so as, in accordance with our own opinions, to form endless conjectures concerning God, but we should leave such knowledge in the hands of God Himself.

Since, therefore, the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all, although all do not believe them; and since they proclaim that one only God, to the exclusion of all others, formed all things by His word, whether visible or invisible, heavenly or earthly, in the water or under the earth, as I have shown from the very words of Scripture; and since the very system of creation to which we belong testifies, by what falls under our notice, that one Being made and governs it—those persons will seem truly foolish who blind their eyes to such a clear demonstration, and will not behold the light of the announcement [made to them]; but they put fetters upon themselves, and every one of them imagines, by means of their obscure interpretations of the parables, that he has found out a God of his own.

Additional views can be read HERE.

So, once again, you are proven wrong in your false declaration that the Reformers were the ones who invented the doctrines of sola Scriptura and sola fide. There is plentiful documentation that these are Biblical doctrines, proven over and over BY direct Scriptures, as well as the beliefs held by the Apostles and those they discipled to carry on the ministry of reconciliation. These WERE the teachings once delivered unto the saints and they will continue to be regardless of the accursed gospel false teachers use to try to deceive.

[boatbums]

the Catholic church is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.....always.

NOPE! Only Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. The church you place all your hope in, not at all - and it can be easily proved.

[terycarl]

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:

they are wrong, that's why they are PROTESTANTS...

[boatbums]

But the fact remains that “all have sinned” is in the context of “venom on the lips” and “feet quick to shed blood”, so unless you are prepared to advance the idea that Mary hastily murdered someone, you need to take the entire passage as a poetic exaggeration, including the “all” in it.

Tell me, have YOU murdered anyone? Yet, wouldn't you admit that you HAVE sinned? The FACT is that we ALL have sinned and FALL SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD. That is the message of Romans 3. It isn't saying we are only sinners if we've killed someone. It is God telling us we can NEVER be as perfect and sinless as He is. That can only come from Christ's imputed righteousness given to us by the grace of God through faith. Mary admitted she needed a Savior, so should we.

[BlueDragon]

There is no condoning of divisions into denominations in the scripture. Care to prove me wrong on that?

Ahh, so you will be telling the pope and others to rescind all the reams of popery "fluff" theological additions, uhm err, developments, and have those whom are presently in oversight of RC "magesterium" tender apology to the Orthodox?

No?

Do the same work which is being required of others.

[boatbums]

The length of a post is usually in inverse proportion to its meaningful content.

In this case, it wasn't! Since you have already admitted you are too lazy busy to read what others have to say to you in response to YOUR comments, you miss out on some good stuff. Stuff the rest of us can enjoy and learn by. Your loss!

[Springfield Reformer]

But the fact remains that “all have sinned” is in the context of “venom on the lips” and “feet quick to shed blood”, so unless you are prepared to advance the idea that Mary hastily murdered someone, you need to take the entire passage as a poetic exaggeration, including the “all” in it.

I appreciate your response.  As you might expect, I cannot agree with your assessment.  Jesus equated spiritual acts of sin with physical acts.  His teaching allows us to say that one merely needs to lust in order to be guilty of adultery.  Likewise with murder. Under the rule presented in the Sermon on the Mount, that our "feet are quick to shed blood" is a spiritual fact, not in the least an exaggeration, even if we never actually take anyone out.  I know that's a hard sentence, and it seems like it can't be so of the kind and good people we know.  But God does not let us do all that is in our hearts.  This is mercy on His part.  But what evil lives within us is still there, even if it does not come fully to the surface.  

This is the gravity of our sin with which Paul is wrestling in Romans 3.   He's not issuing fuzzy-edged generalizations.  He's making sure we understand that every man woman and child that came forth from Adam is under the curse of sin.  It is a dark and all inclusive shroud, and we are all trapped within it if we are human. The only exception, by way of incarnation of God Himself, is Jesus.  

I wish it were an exaggeration.  You have no idea how much I wish that.  But it's true in the harshest, most absolute way it can be. The only light at the end of that awful tunnel is Jesus.  No one else.  Were it not for His appearing, we would all be lost, every last one of us.  Due cause to celebrate His coming to us, is it not?

Peace,

SR

[D-fendr]

one thousand six hundred years before even the first protestant was born....suddenly, you, a person of perhaps 50-60 years of age, decides that you can better interpret what Christ meant when He established His church, than could the original Apostles..

Yeah. It's the Shazamm School Of Theology.