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.

[annalex]

Can a Catholic in the course of normal human events gain salvation while rejecting Catholic dogma?

First, do you imply "till his very death"? Because if not, he can repent and come back to the Church any time. In fact, we don't know if true repentance happens at death, for it may not be visible to anyone but Christ.

Then there is the question of full cooperation of the will. Does he know and understand the dogma? Does he seek to reconcile his views with the views of the Church? Is he grieving over his dissent?

Then, -- as you perhaps know, but I post for the general readership, -- not everything the Church teaches is dogma. Many aspects of the Church, often the most visible ones, are "disciplines", not dogmas. A good example is celibacy of the priests in the Roman Rite.

But finally, one who knowingly and willingly resist any dogma of the Church to the end cannot be saved, no.

The Last Judgment
Hans Memling

Merry Christmas!

[CynicalBear]

>>A good way to avoid unproductive arguments is indeed to keep them rooted in written materials of the Church, and especially canonical scripture.<<

Why do you change what scripture says?

1 Corinthians 4:6 And these things, brethren, I did transfer to myself and to Apollos because of you, that in us ye may learn not to think above that which hath been written, that ye may not be puffed up one for one against the other,

No where in that verse does it say "written materials of the Church". It says "which hath been written". The Catholic Church doesn't go by what "hath been written". Once again, corrupting what the Holy Spirit says in scripture.

>>Indeed, the Holy Scripture is written to teach us.<<

Roman Catholics surely haven't learned.

[Mark17]

WV, I didn’t even know this thread was going until annalex pinged me with some picture of someone. I see the battle continues, and as you know, I am a reformed catholic. Traffic today, the day after Christmas was pretty bad on MacArthur Blvd. The NCCC grocery store was pretty crowded too. By all means, continue.

[xone]

But finally, one who knowingly and willingly resist any dogma of the Church to the end cannot be saved, no.

Thanks of the explanation.

Merry Christmas!

To you as well.

[CynicalBear]

Let's look at that passage you posted directly from the Greek.

James 2:21-22 Abraham the father of us not by works was justified having offered Isaac the son of him upon the alter you see that his faith was working with the works of him and by his works his faith was completed.

Not by works was justified but only that his faith was completed. Isn't that interesting. The Holy Spirit had the apostles write not by works but the Catholic Church changes it to "by works" making it look like the works is what justified.

The Catholic Church is an evil and corrupt religion.

[af_vet_1981]

Thank you for at least admitting that the basis for the veracity of RC teaching, which includes her claim to being the infallible one true church, is not that of the basis of Scriptural warrant, but that of the premise of her own assured veracity.

For as said, Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

Do you do something similar to that which you write against ? The LORD Jesus Christ promised us a church against which the gates of hell would not prevail. He did not promise us a Bible, although we have a Bible that the visible holy catholic church compiled and preserved across twenty centuries. Will you name an alternative church to the Catholic Church ? I read so many attacks on the Catholic Church and yet the closest claim I read was a pair who ostensibly evangelized Britain to which some Baptists churches of whom I've not heard claim their apostolic succession to that pair, albeit the claim was somewhat disavowed upon mention. Do you set up yourself as an authority as does the Catholic Church, but without a published provenance that the Catholics proffer ? I assume you are not among some secret Pentecostal society that denies the commandment water baptism. It is not enough to deny the Catholic claim. Wherefore my judgment is one must offer an actual alternative.

[CynicalBear]

>>But finally, one who knowingly and willingly resist any dogma of the Church to the end cannot be saved, no.<<

So you and the Catholic Church think that The Dogma of the Assumption of Mary must be believed in order to be saved? Yet that was not made a dogma until 1950! So no one was saved until 1950 per the Catholic Church? The apostles didn't even teach what must be believed (according to the Catholic Church) to be saved? That's an astounding belief! To think that for hundreds of years no one was saved.

Even the Catholic Church says it was not believed for hundreds of years. It says:

"The doctrine of the Assumption was one that developed over time. It was not something new but rather the logical result of what was already known (Mary’s Immaculate Conception). Since corruption in the grave was the result of sin (Genesis 2:17) it was only logical to think that someone without sin would not suffer such a fate." [http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_assumption.htm]

A "logical result"? "it was only logical"? Here's another statement.

"If therefore it might come to pass by the power of your grace, it has appeared right to us your servants that, as you, having overcome death, do reign in glory, so you should raise up the body of your Mother and take her with you, rejoicing, into heaven. Then said the Savior [Jesus]: "Be it done according to your will" (The Passing of the Virgin 16:2-17 [A.D. 300]).

"it has appeared right to us"? Not until 300AD and then only because "it has appeared right to us"? No teaching by the apostles. No mention of it untill 300AD! But then because "it has appeared right to us"? Now it's a dogma that people have to believe to be saved?

So tell me, who was saved prior to 1950? Or was it 300AD? When did people begin to be saved?

[af_vet_1981]

As you have abundantly shown, even WHEN the Scriptures are given to you that prove sola Scriptura and sola fide, you reject them

Sola fide is specifically rejected by the Apostle James. We are not saved by faith alone. The LORD Jesus warns us over and over again. Let those with ears to hear, actually hear and not deceive themselves.

[Dutchboy88]

"1.I assume a certain scriptural and cultural literacy when discussing Messiah and his Jewish Apostles. The Mikva, or water baptism is one of them, accepted by all Orthodox and Protestant denominations. Fundamentalists absolutely believe in water baptism. They are Baptists. Evangelicals believe in water baptism. Now I know you do not believe in water baptism for believers."

You have a very interesting habit of putting words in my mouth. What exactly do you mean by "I know you do not believe in water baptism"?

"2.This, as well as the Trinity, are known issues among Pentecostals and cause some of them to be labeled as cults."

You seem to be working hard to pigeonhole me. What exactly is this remark suppose to mean? I certainly believe the Scriptures present Jesus as the Son of God, One with the Father, God Incarnate, the Creator of Heaven and Earth. I certainly believe the Scriptures present the Holy Spirit to be equally God, the Unseen God, the One indwelling the believers who have been given to the Son. And, of course, I believe the Father is equally God, the Father of the Triune Godhead, the Judge of the living and dead.

If you are aligned with the Cult of Rome, then your gang added a fourth "person" to your Trinity, Mary the Co-Redemptrix. This ordinary human woman has been elevated by Rome way beyond her true status, demonstrated by the list of heretical statements they made...with the blessing of Rome. Again, are you really claiming to be 2000 years old and baptized by an apostle?

[Dutchboy88]

"sounds like a good excuse to play golf on Sunday mornings rather than go to church!!!"

Ouch. However, if by "play golf", you mean spending 25 hours per week studying the Scriptures to teach the Apostles perspective on the incredibly good news of Jesus to a gathering of interested believers, then you may be right.

[Dutchboy88]

"Poor catechism evidence:"

True, true.

[metmom]

But finally, one who knowingly and willingly resist any dogma of the Church to the end cannot be saved, no.

Which is found no where in Scripture and the Catholic church saying it is so doesn't make it so.

Salvation is found only in the person of Jesus Christ, not in any organization.

[Resettozero]

It is Catholic teaching that the Church may not contradict the Holy Scripture because the Church my not contradict herself. The Holy Scripture is to be loved and studied, and followed. You illustrated this from the fathers of the Church. Very good. Now about the Scripture being the single and complete rule of faith. THAT is an error. You understand the difference? If not, I can explain.

No thank you. I've learned more about the RCC's teachings and the way RCs communicate with other Christians during the past year on FR to satisfy any questions I may have had.

At the outset in 2014, I felt the RCC was just another Christian denomination like Adventism, or Methodism, or Charismatic, yet containing may born-again believers and truely faithful followers of Jesus of Nazareth.

Now, I have been sufficiently convinced the RCC is a malignant Christian cult that is and has been for centuries subverting whole familes into a structured, manufactured and enforced religion that aims to minimize and ultimately replace the one true and only Savior of all men and women, namely the Lord Jesus Christ, and to place the RCC in His place in all things temporal and spiritual.

Not the least bit interested in joining with you in the kinds of worship the RCs on FR are advocating to me (and others) and that have been stated to me (and others) in the strongest, sometimes uncivil terms. R2z

[af_vet_1981]

You have a very interesting habit of putting words in my mouth. What exactly do you mean by "I know you do not believe in water baptism"?

Your post denying that the LORD Jesus Christ gave the Apostles a great commission to teach all nations and baptize them with water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Baptism with water is foundational and it is accepted by all Orthodox, Protestants, Fundamentalists, and Evangelicals. It is the sign of a cult to deny it.

"Yet I speak of the great apostolic commission to teach all the Gentiles and baptize them with water in the name of the Father, Son, and a Holy Spirit."

Yet you speak of an error that you have manufactured...nowhere does Jesus say "water". And, I am curious which apostle baptized you. And, you must let us know your secret for staying alive for 2000 years. 3,173 posted on December 24, 2014 at 12:47:49 PM EST by Dutchboy88

[Dutchboy88]

"Your post denying that the LORD Jesus Christ gave the Apostles a great commission to teach all nations and baptize them with water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

Oh, my. You have continued to promote a lie, here. I did not deny that Jesus told the disciples to give the incredibly good news to all nations and baptize in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. You added the term "water" to the text. A dangerous, dangerous error.

Your Roman Cult is not βαπτιζοντεσ if you believe this is describing immersion such as John the Baptizer did. The ridiculous little sprinkling that Rome uses with some kind of "holy water" (there is another farcical laugh), with a guy in a bathrobe saying words over a baby is nowhere near a baptism. Examine the bogus outfit from Rome before you trot out Scripture, my FRiend.

[boatbums]

The Catholic Church is an evil and corrupt religion.

Which is blatantly evident when they say things like:

One who knowingly and willingly resist any dogma of the Church to the end cannot be saved.

What better example of elitist cultic garbage is there?

[boatbums]

Maybe all those people prior to 1950 are still in Purgatory? ;o)

[boatbums]

Sola fide is specifically rejected by the Apostle James. We are not saved by faith alone. The LORD Jesus warns us over and over again. Let those with ears to hear, actually hear and not deceive themselves.

As you have abundantly been shown, James does not contradict the REST of Scripture which teaches justification by grace through faith without works (i.e., ALONE). When all you have to go on is a misinterpreted snippet of a verse to develop an entire doctrine, your foundation is sand. Why not build it on the rock of faith in Jesus Christ who died so that we can be saved through faith in Him and not by our own righteousness? Let those who the Holy Spirit has opened their ears and hearts hear and believe and be saved!

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:


“Blessed are those whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the one whose sin the Lord will never count against them.” (Romans 4:1-8)

[CynicalBear]

>>The LORD Jesus Christ promised us a church against which the gates of hell would not prevail.<<

Which can in no way be the corrupted conglomerate that is the Catholic Church. The ekklesia that is spoken of in scripture and which Christ is the head of has no resemblance to the cultic organization that today calls itself the Roman Catholic Church.

>>Will you name an alternative church to the Catholic Church ?<<

There is no such word as "church" in the New Testament nor is there the concept that the Roman Catholic Church has constructed that it calls "church". The organization that Catholics refer to as the "church" is nothing more than a pagan religion built on corruption off and additions to the word of God. There can be no legitimate alternative to the "Catholic Church" as the very idea is contrary to God's word.

>>Wherefore my judgment is one must offer an actual alternative.<<

The only true ekklesia of God are those who have been "called out" by God to be the body of Christ. Their allegiance and trust is in Christ alone through faith alone.

[CynicalBear]

>>Sola fide is specifically rejected by the Apostle James.<<

No it is not. See post 3245 for just one of the examples of Catholics having been shown.