Friday, July 15, 2016

The appearance of idolatry and treating Mary as a mediator


1 Timothy 2:5
Revelation 19:10; 22:8-9

 Deuteronomy 18:11 

1 Samuel 28:1-25

1 Chronicles 10:13-14


51 comments:

Paul Hoffer said...

You misrepresent how Catholics view mediation by created beings as intercession. Your article is a form of idolatrous blasphemy according to your narrow blinkered definition of mediation. Shame on you.

Ken said...

No; shame on you and your church for all the centuries of bowing before statues and praying to statues, giving the appearance of idolatry; it not actually doing idolatrous actions. Shame on your church for distorting the true Biblical Mary.

Revelation 19:10

Revelation 22:8-9

I Tiimothy 2:5

Ken said...

I meant "if"

No; shame on you and your church for all the centuries of bowing before statues and praying to statues, giving the appearance of idolatry; even IF not actually meaning to be doing idolatrous actions. Shame on your church for distorting the true Biblical Mary. Gave a bad witness to Muslims for centuries.

Revelation 19:10

Revelation 22:8-9

I Tiimothy 2:5

Arvinger said...

Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9 say about worship of God, not about asking another believer for intercession, thus these texts are not relevant to the issue of praying to Our Lady and the Saints.

1 Timothy 2:5 - yes, of course, Jesus is our only mediator, but that does not mean that we cannot ak other believers to pray for u to receive grace from Our Lord. If 1 Timothy 2:5 excludes prayer to Our Lady and the Saints, then it excludes also prayer of one believer for another here on earth, which mean that everytime you ask another believer to pray for you you commit "idolatry" by your definition. Your interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:5 makes it contradictory with 1 Timothy 2:1.

The Old Testament pasage you brought up do not deal with the issue of prayer or intercession at all, but with the use of witchcraft - completely irrelevant to the issue.

Thus, not a single relevant passage has been brought up by the Reformed side in last couple of articles on that issue, and no reason why I should not ask the believers who are in the presence of God for their intercessions were given. Also, I have not heard any reply for 1 Corinthians 12, where St. Paul teaches unity of all members of the Body of Christ, without any divison between the living and the dead. Oh, and don't forget that by professing to believe in the doctrine of the Trinity you give bad witness to the Muslims, since it makes appear to them as if you are polytheists.

Scott Windsor, Sr. said...

Christians should not be so worried about how things "appear" to ignorant Muslims. We know how and why we do things. Catholics should not be so worried about how things "appear" to ignorant Protestants. We know how and why we do things. The ignorant often attack things they do not fully understand.

Ken said...

You should worry, since it (statues, icons, praying and bowing before them; talking to statues and kissing them, etc.) has been a bad witness for 1400 years. If yours was a true church, it would want to communicate the gospel and the truth clearly and not leave unreached peoples in their ignorance.

how shall they hear without a preacher?" - see Romans 10:13-15

It doesn't bother you that no doctrinally sound Christian witness went to inner Arabia?
That it was heretics and Gnostics that Muhammad got a lot of information from?
That when they did come into contact with the more "orthodox" churches in the more Northern areas outside of Arabia, they still got the impression that Mary was worshipped as a godess and that she is part of the Trinity?
That even after 1400 years; Muslims are still thinking that you guys worship Mary and that she is part of the Trinity? That doesn't bother you?

It doesn't bother you that the Arabs and Muslims and the author of the Qur'an thought that the Trinity was "the Father, the Son, and the Mother?" - see the Qur'an, Surah 5:116 - Jesus said, "did I say take Me and My Mother as two more gods besides Allah?" and 4:171 - "do not say three"

You should be ashamed that you want to leave them in their ignorance and don't care about their souls and that Vatican 2 theology and the CCC says that "Muslims worship the same god as we do" - they do not; and they on their way to hell without Christ.

Prayer is only for God.



Paul Hoffer said...

Ken, do you think that misrepresenting what Catholics believe, whether you agree with its teachings or not, might contribute to any misunderstanding that Muslims or Protestants might have about how Catholics understand intercessory prayer? Prayer as adoration is certainly reserved to God alone. Prayers of petition are not necessarily directed to God alone. I am sure people ask you to pray for them all the time. They are not rendering adoration to you when they do so. All intercessory prayer is mediation. I hope and pray that God grant you the ability to discern that truth.

zipper778 said...

Can Roman Catholics give an example of what an inappropriate prayer to Mary would look like? I understand and disagree with the argument that prayers to Mary and the Saints are simply prayers of petition (and I would still disagree with that if it were the case), but there are many examples of Roman Catholic prayers that ask someone other than God for power or some kind of special protection.

I don't ask fellow believers for that.

Paul Hoffer said...

Zipper778: You asked: Can Roman Catholics give an example of what an inappropriate prayer to Mary would look like?

Yes. There have been Marian devotions that have been deemed to be inappropriate and even heretical in the history of the Church. The Collyridians were a heretical sect that gave Mary latria by holding services that mimicked the Mass. This heresy was condemned by a number of the Early Church Fathers.

In fact any attempt to make Mary out to be a deity or claiming that God elevated her to the status of divinity would be grossly improper. There are New Age goddess sects, Voodoo cults and the like that treat Mary as a deity which is gross idolatry.

All Marian prayer in the Catholic Church either recognizes Mary’s status as a created being explicitly or the believer understands that fact before they engage in such devotion. That being said, all Marian devotion should lead to a deeper love of Christ and to a better understanding of Him. If such devotion did not increase my faith and love for my God, and lead me to a greater desire to give Him adoration, I would not do it.

You wrote: but there are many examples of Roman Catholic prayers that ask someone other than God for power or some kind of special protection. I don't ask fellow believers for that.

Me: Given how the Catholics understand Marian devotion and the Communion of Saints, we do not believe that Mary or the saints grant us any power, or healing, or protection, or grace-it all comes from God. The notion of patronage reflects how we understand and recognize saints. There are many ways a person exhibits saintly virtues.

As St. Paul states in 1 Cor. 12, there is one Body of Christ, but we members have a diversity of functions. Further, “Some people God has designated in the church to be, first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then, mighty deeds; then, gifts of healing, assistance, administration, and varieties of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work mighty deeds? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? Strive eagerly for the greatest spiritual gifts. (1 Cor. 12:28-31)

The idea that we pray to a particular saint for “power” or “special protection” or for healing is a recognition of the fact that the Holy Spirit gives us different gifts. When we pray to a patron saint, it is because we are asking God for the same gift of the Spirit that He chose to give that saint. We are asking that patron saint to pray with us to ask God for the same virtue or grace or healing or power He graciously gave that saint.

If you don’t ask fellow believers to pray that God grant you the same gifts He granted them, you should.

Thank you for the opportunity to allow me to share an important aspect of my faith with you

God bless!

Ken said...

Aside from these linked articles below, there are thousands of examples of prayers to Mary over the centuries by Roman Catholics that prove that prayers to Mary are much more than just asking her to pray for you, like the way we do in asking someone to pray for us while we and they are alive on the earth. Many are by Popes and others by famous RC theologians like Louis de Montfort and Alphonse Liguori - whole websites have thousands of these kinds of prayers and entire books have them also. I have one of these books called, "Mary day by day", which I bought at a RC book store years ago so I could see the examples of this kind of thing myself. It is amazing.

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2014/11/a-more-honest-roman-catholic-on-marian.html

http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2008/05/is-mary-more-compassionate-than-jesus.html

Turretinfan sums it up well here:

http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2008/11/clarification-of-mariolatry-accusation.html


1. External Critique

This critique of Catholicism is an external critique. We are not saying that Roman Catholicism today says, "We worship Mary." Instead, we are saying that actions and attitudes expressed by Benedict XVI and others amount to worship: they are worship. Shakespeare wrote that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

2. External Judgment

This critique of Roman Catholicism is based on the actual events and expressed opinions of the members of Roman Catholicism identified. It is not based on reading their minds. We are not suggesting that the average person at the Vatican kneels in front of a statue and says to themselves, "Time to worship Mary." No, instead, we are saying that the expressed attitudes towards Mary (such as asking Mary to turn their hearts or the hearts of others) are inappropriate - that they amount to worship of Mary.

Conclusion

Our goal here is to warn folks that what they are doing is wrong. We are not trying to suggest that "Joe Roman Catholic" knows that he is worshiping Mary when he recites the Ave Maria, when he bows to a statue of Mary, and when he otherwise venarates Mary and deparated believers.

-TurretinFan

Ken said...

Another extended quote from Turretinfan at the article link below: (embolding mine; - the guy that John Paul 2 extolled, had as his "greatest joy" praying to Mary and with her, etc. - If communing with Mary is one's "greatest joy", then she has replaced Christ !! One can think of many Scriptures that that idea is a violation of.)

"Roman Catholicism is formally monotheistic. Practically, however, Mary is often treated as a goddess (being addressed by such absurdly exalted titles as "Queen of Heaven"), and the "saints" are often a "Christianized" equivalent to the pantheon of Greek/Roman lesser deities.

It is important to keep in mind that God alone can hear and answer prayers. Thus, when those in Catholicism offer prayers to the dead, they are implicitly attributing divine powers to them. Mary, for example, was and is a true human being. If she were living here on earth, no one would expect her to be able to respond to all the requests that are daily made of her, let alone understand the myriad of languages in which such requests are made. However, Mary is treated as though she were God: able to hear prayers of the heart, able to answer prayers, able to understand prayers in any language, and able to understand a vast multitude of prayers at the same time.

I realize there are two common rebuttals to these objections. The first common rebuttal is to say that no one is really praying to Mary, they are just asking Mary to pray for them. This is not misleading at best, and certainly not accurate in general.

To illustrate, allow me to present a paragraph from the web biography of Simón de Rojas (circa A.D. 1552-1624) who was added to the list of "saints" by pope John Paul II on July 3, 1988:

His greatest joy was to visit Marian shrines, to pray to Mary and with Mary, to imitate her virtues, to sing her praises, to acknowledge her importance in the mystery of God and of the Church. Through profound theological studies, he came to understand even better the mission of Mary in cooperation with the Trinity for the salvation of the human race and the sanctification of the Church. He lived his religious vows in the imitation of Mary. He held that, for everyone to be completely of God, as Mary had been, it was necessary to become her slaves, or better, slaves of God in Mary; for this reason he established the Congregation of the Slaves of Mary for the greater glory of the Trinity, in praise of the Virgin, in the service of the poor. For him, to be a slave of Mary meant belonging totally to her: "Totus tuus" in order to unite oneself more intimately to Christ and in Him through the Spirit, to the Father."

Turretinfan, (embolding mine)

Seems also such a massive violation of "offer yourselves to God as a living sacrifice", etc. of Romans 12:1-2. It does not say "surrender" or "offer yourself to Mary". Roman Catholicism eclipses Christ by so much focus on Mary all the time.

http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2009/02/response-to-jay-dyer-on-calvinism-part.html

Ken said...

Another excellent article (by James White) that demonstrates how wrong the RCC is: With my embolding - surrendering oneself is an act of worship - Romans 12:1-2 - "this is your reasonable or spiritual worship to God", "offer your bodies as living sacrifices to God". Not to Mary. I embolden some of the parts that are most offensive. See, Marian devotion and traditions are much more than just "asking her to pray for you". There is total surrender, which is worship, and must only be for God. No wonder the Protestants accuse the RCC of idolatry, even though officially, in your documents, "latria" (worship for God alone) is only for God. In reality though, this is worship to Mary and it is just wrong.

http://vintage.aomin.org/In_sententius.html


"Rejection of non-Biblical and anti- Biblical teachings about Mary does not make one "anti-Mary." Indeed, one might well assert that to be concerned about maintaining the truth about she who was "blessed among women" would include safeguarding her against idolatrous worship, etc. I am sure that if Mary was aware of the millions who attempt to pray to her, ask her intercession, and dedicate themselves to her, all in direct violation of Biblical commands, she would be greatly distressed and grieved. I believe that God, in His mercy, has surely shielded Mary from such knowledge. So, one might well turn the charge of "anti-Marianism" against those who propagate such items of belief as these:

Prayer to Our Lady: Hail Mary, etc. My Queen! My Mother!
I give thee all myself, and, to show my devotion to thee, I
consecrate to thee my eyes, my ears, my mouth, my heart, my
entire self. Wherefore, O loving Mother, as I am thine own,
keep me, defend me, as thy property and possession.


The above prayer provides a promised indulgence of 500 days for a month's recitation. In another publication we find the promise of the Virgin Mary concerning the "Brown Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel." The scapular is said to be a "gift to you from your heavenly mother," and is said to be an "assurance of salvation." Mary's own promise, supposedly given July 16th, 1251, is that "Whosoever dies clothed in this (scapular) shall not suffer eternal fire."

Continued . . .

Ken said...

Part 2 from James White's article:

The following prayer, titled "The Morning Offering," is included:

O my God, in union with the Immaculate Heart of Mary (here kiss
your Scapular as a sign of your consecration; partial indulgence
also), I offer Thee the Precious Blood of Jesus from all the
altars throughout the world, joining with It the offering of my
every thought, word and action of this day. O my Jesus, I
desire today to gain every indulgence and merit I can and I
offer them, together with myself, to Mary Immaculate, that she
may best apply them in the interests of Thy most Sacred Heart.
Precious Blood of Jesus, save us! Immaculate Heart of Mary,
pray for us! Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us!
This is surely the true "anti-Marianism," for Mary would never desire that anyone consecrate themselves to her. She would recognize that any such action takes away from the sole glory of Jesus Christ, and, as He is her Savior and Lord as well, she would never seek to be placed in competition with Him, even if those so doing denied that such a competition was the end result of their teachings. Now, I recognize that some of the sentiments expressed in the above quotations are not considered to be items that must be believed by Roman Catholics. Apologists such as Mr. Madrid are quick to point out the difference between true Catholic doctrine and devotional beliefs. But in passing let us note that if the Roman Church allows her people to believe these things, she must either not have any concern for truth (if these beliefs are not true), or she must believe them true as well, and simply lack the courage to say so directly and openly. One cannot imagine the Apostle Paul allowing believers in the churches to pray to someone other than God and, when asked about this practice, saying, "Well, it's not really something that you have to believe to be saved--they are not being hurt by the practice, so it's a matter of individual choice." So, denying the Roman Catholic doctrines concerning Mary is not "anti-Marianism." It is "anti-Marian-distortionism" if anything at all."

James White

well said

Ken said...

This web-site has many idolatrous images of Mary as Queen of Heaven, and not even with Jesus - She is all by herself as a goddess.
This statuary is ugly !!

The prayers are blasphemous and go well beyond just asking her to pray for you.

http://www.marypages.com/PrayerstoMary.htm

Ken said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ken said...

More blasphemous prayers and worship to Mary:

"Most Holy and Immaculate Virgin Mary, my Mother, I - the most miserable of all
sinners - have recourse to you today, the Mother of my Lord.

"I venerate you, O great Queen, and thank you for all the graces you have obtained for
me, especially for having delivered me from hell,
[ !!! ??*&^%!!!! ] which I have so often deserved.

I love you, O my very kind sovereign, and for your love, I commit myself to serve you
forever, and tend all my efforts to make you loved by others too. I place all my hopes
and all my salvation in you.

Accept me as your servant, and receive me under your protection, O Mother of
Mercies. And since you are so powerful over God, [ Wow !!!! ??!!$# ]
deliver me from all temptations or
obtain for me the strength to conquer them until death. "

Ken said...

Two more links with lots of quotes of many Roman Catholics in history who have worshiped Mary.
the distinctions between latria, dulia, and hyperdulia are distinctions without a difference.

http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/06/08/we-dont-worship-mary-pt-1/

http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/06/15/we-dont-worship-mary-pt2/

Paul Hoffer said...

Warning: lengthy posting coming!


Ken: I disagree with your prejudiced analysis. Worship is simply an old English word meaning to honor or to respect. That is why Catholics go further and distinguish between worship of adoration (latria) and worship of veneration (dulia/hyper-dulia). Worship has both an external and an internal component. To judge on external only is both uncharitable and unbiblical. See, 1 Sam. 16:7; Jn. 7:24). If you are going to judge on externals, judge the practice of Marian prayer by its fruits like our Lord says rather than from appearances. See, Mt. 7:16-20.

Moreover, bearing false witness is sort of like a wolf dressing up in sheep’s clothing (Mt. 7:15).

First let us look at your statements concerning St. John Paul II. I will simply suggest the reader peruse Redemptoris Mater and the reader can form their own opinion on whether John Paul II practiced Marian devotion or mariolatry.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031987_redemptoris-mater.html .

Paul Hoffer said...

In regards to St. Simon de Rojas, let us unpack the paragraph you quote from since it actually proves my case and disproves yours.

“His greatest joy was to visit Marian shrines, to pray to Mary and with Mary, to imitate her virtues, to sing her praises, to acknowledge her importance in the mystery of God and of the Church. Through profound theological studies, he came to understand even better the mission of Mary in cooperation with the Trinity for the salvation of the human race and the sanctification of the Church. He lived his religious vows in the imitation of Mary. He held that, for everyone to be completely of God, as Mary had been, it was necessary to become her slaves, or better, slaves of God in Mary; for this reason he established the Congregation of the Slaves of Mary for the greater glory of the Trinity, in praise of the Virgin, in the service of the poor. For him, to be a slave of Mary meant belonging totally to her: "Totus tuus" in order to unite oneself more intimately to Christ and in Him through the Spirit, to the Father.

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/saints/ns_lit_doc_19880703_de-rojas_en.html

Why did St. Simon love to go to Marian shrines, to pray to her, to imitate her, to sing her praises, to acknowledge her importance in the mystery of God and the Church, and to study her? BECAUSE he believed that imitation of her led one to be COMPLETELY OF GOD, to enable one to UNITE MORE INTIMATELY TO CHRIST AND IN HIM THROUGH THE SPIRIT TO THE FATHER. He did not honor Mary because he thought her a deity. He did so because his Marian devotion led him to Jesus.

Simply put, Catholics engage in Marian devotion because it points them, it directs them, it leads them, it unites them with Jesus Christ. We do not worship Mary like a God; we venerate her as the beloved of God because she is most completely and totally united with Him out of all creation. We imitaate her example because we seek to be better united with Him as well. Now you may disagree with this methodology, but never doubt the reason for it.

Paul Hoffer said...

As for the title “Queen of Heaven,” Mary is called that, both of them due to Christology. Mary is the Queen of Heaven because Jesus Christ is King of Heaven. Her queenship points to and affirms His kingship. St. John the Evangelist, emphasizes the importance of Mary’s maternity of Jesus in his writings from the beginning of Jesus’ ministry at Cana to the foot of the cross. He stresses that Mary is the mother of Jesus whose kingship is emphasized at Jn. 18:33, 36-37; 19:2, 12-15. Real biblical scholars not how John stresses that Jesus died as a king and that His kingship was the reason He was crucified (John 19:18-22). John refers to Mary as "the mother of Jesus" in connection to His kingship (Jn. 19:25), thus making Mary the gebira, the queen mother (Jeremiah 13:18; 22:26; 29:2; 1 Kg. 2:19. Please note too that it is the Queen mother that places the crown on the Son. (Song of Songs 3:11. Cf. Rev. 12:1, 5.) This theme also appears in Luke where Mary is specifically referred to as Mother of My Lord (Lk. 1:43).

Catholics call Mary Queen of Heaven because we believe Jesus is truly the King of king and Lord of Lords. And to say that Mary is Queen of Heaven because of some sort of syncretism of pagan pantheons is nothing more than anti-Catholic propaganda which ignores the plain text of the Word of God.

Paul Hoffer said...

Ken wrote: “It is important to keep in mind that God alone can hear and answer prayers.”

Me: Rather than rehash arguments from Catholic Tradition and history where saints in heaven actually interceded for us, I will disprove Ken’s assertions through the Scriptures alone.

First, let us get out of the way the Deuteronomic prohintion about engaging in divination using the dead (Dt. 18:10-11), but it is not communicating with the dead that is prohibited but using the dead to gain hidden knowledge or to divine the future. Read closely 1 Sam. 28:8-16. What was being condemned? Not communication with the dead, but what the communication was being used for. Proof that this is so: Lk. 9:29-31 where Jesus communicates with Moses and Elijah. Now arguably Elijah was still alive since he was assumed in heaven but there is no question that Moses had died. So why is Jesus talking with dead people? Did He break His own law? Or isn’t the simpler argument that not all communication was forbidden, only certain kinds. That would also explain how Jesus and Peter could talk with Lazarus and Tabitha. Now one might argue that both Jesus and Peter prayed to God before talking with the dead, but we Catholics imitate the example of Our Lord and St. Peter by praying to God first as well before we pray to saints. Our prayer always starts off with “In the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen.”
.
What can we say about the dead?

A. The dead” in Christ are not dead, but are alive. Proof: Mt. 22: 31-32; Heb. 12:1

B. They are equal to the angels. Proof: Lk. 20:35-36

C. Nothing including death can separate us from each other or from Jesus Christ.
Proof: Rom. 8:38-39

D. When we die, we beomce united with Christ and one in spirit with Him.
Proof: 1 Cor. 6:17

E. We are so united with Him, we partake in His glory and divine nature.
Proof: 1 Pt. 5:1; 2 Pt. 1:4

F. The dead intercede for us.
Proof: 2 Maccabees 15: 11-16; Revelation 6: 9-11

G. It is permissible to talk to or pray for the dead (but not engage in
divination using them).
Proof: Daniel 3:86; My. 17:1-3; Lk. 7:12-15; Jn 11:38-44; Acts 9: 36-41; 2
Tim. 1:16-18

H. The dead pray for us. Proof: Revelation 5:8:

I. The dead are aware of what is happening on earth. Proof: Mt. 17:3-5; Lk.
15:7-10.. Death does not separate the members of the Body of Christ as
noted earlier. As Heb. 12:1 points the cloud of witnesses see our burdens
and our sins.

J. The dead in heaven offer our prayers to God. Proof: Rev. 5:8; 8:3-5

There are additional proofs from Scripture but hopefully this gives one a taste of why Catholics believe t hat Mary and the rest of the saints do pray for us and do hear our prayers.

Paul Hoffer said...

Now to simply address the canard that saints are not able to hear and address all of our prayers. Certainly, if they were still alive on earth subject to and bound by the restrictions of finite time and space, they couldn’t. But with God, all things are possible. Being with Him in heaven, they are now outside of time and space. Those terms have no meaning. I will refer you to Mark 12:18-27 as to what Our Lord said Himself on the matter. Those in heaven are alive and now have a new and higher nature. Having been glorified in Christ once they enter into heaven, they are far more and alive and knowledgeable than those of us still on earth. On earth, we see dimly. In heaven, face to face with God, we shall know fully. See, 1 Cor. 13:12. Thus, through that gft of God, the saints are able to answer the many prayers directed to them. Bottom line, saints in heaven cannot hear the prayers of those on earth from their own power. But, being glorified in Jesus Christ they now are partakers of the divine nature and are able to participate in the grace of God to a greater degree than we can even imagine. While God is the only one who by nature is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, the saints in heaven, Mary included in some way share in that nature. By the way, to repeat a great argument I saw on another Catholic blog once, the number of prayers offered by us on earth are only finite, so it would not require omniscience for the saints to hear them and offer intercessory prayer to answer them, but rather just raising their nature to a higher level. So Mary’s answering prayer does not make her a deity, only full of grace.

Paul Hoffer said...

As far your examples of Marian idolatry:

1. I give thee all myself, and, to show my devotion to thee, I
consecrate to thee my eyes, my ears, my mouth, my heart, my
entire self. Wherefore, O loving Mother, as I am thine own,
keep me, defend me, as thy property and possession.

For some reason, this part got left out:

I GIVE MYSELF ENTIRELY TO JESUS, BY DELIVERING AND CONSECRATING TO THEE MY BODY AND SOUL, MY GOODS, BOTH EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR, MY PRAYERS AND MY GOOD WORKS — PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE. I GIVE THEE THE RIGHT TO DISPOSE OF ME FULLY AND ABSOLUTELY, WITHOUT EXCEPTION AND RESERVATION, AND ACCORDING TO THY GOOD PLEASURE, AND TO THE GREATER GLORY OF GOD IN TIME AND ETERNITY.

If the argument against Marian prayer is so strong, why leave off the part about Jesus? Why cherry-pick?

Paul Hoffer said...

2. The Morning Offering

O my God, in union with the Immaculate Heart of Mary (here kiss
your Scapular as a sign of your consecration; partial indulgence
also), I offer Thee the Precious Blood of Jesus from all the
altars throughout the world, joining with It the offering of my
every thought, word and action of this day. O my Jesus, I
desire today to gain every indulgence and merit I can and I
offer them, together with myself, to Mary Immaculate, that she
may best apply them in the interests of Thy most Sacred Heart.
Precious Blood of Jesus, save us! Immaculate Heart of Mary,
pray for us! Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us!

Again, the devotion is cherry-picked apart. This prayer is not said in isolation, but as a part of a greater devotion. The Brown Scapular morning offering includes the recitation of the Our Father and the Doxology. Why rip the prayer out of its overall context if this prayer is idolatrous?

As far as the rest of your argument against consecration to Mary, it is obvious that you do not understand what consecration entails. Protestants love to talk about having a personal relationship with Jesus, Catholics actually do. We experience Christ’s presence in the Scriptures, in the Mass, in the sacraments, in the Liturgy of the Hours. We seek to be closer to Him through all aspects of our prayer life, including by consecrating ourselves to Him offering Him a contrite, humbled heart as the Psalmist says (Psalm 51:19)

In the case of Marian consecration, the basic premise as set forth by St. Louis Marie de Montfort is simply this: that Jesus came into the world through Mary and that for us to always be assured of being intimately close to Jesus, even closer than ever before, we should imitate the example of Mary:

120. As all perfection consists in our being conformed, united and consecrated to Jesus it naturally follows that the most perfect of all devotions is that which conforms, unites, and consecrates us most completely to Jesus. Now of all God's creatures Mary is the most conformed to Jesus. It therefore follows that, of all devotions, devotion to her makes for the most effective consecration and conformity to him. The more one is consecrated to Mary, the more one is consecrated to Jesus.

That is why perfect consecration to Jesus is but a perfect and complete consecration of oneself to the Blessed Virgin, which is the devotion I teach; or in other words, it is the perfect renewal of the vows and promises of holy baptism.

121. This devotion consists in giving oneself entirely to Mary in order to belong entirely to Jesus through her. It requires us to give:

Our body with its senses and members;

Our soul with its faculties;

Our present material possessions and all we shall acquire in the future;

Our interior and spiritual possessions, that is, our merits, virtues and good actions of the past, the present and the future.

In other words, we give her all that we possess both in our natural life and in our spiritual life as well as everything we shall acquire in the future in the order of nature, of grace, and of glory in heaven. This we do without any reservation, not even of a penny, a hair, or the smallest good deed. And we give for all eternity without claiming or expecting, in return for our offering and our service, any other reward than the honour of belonging to our Lord through Mary and in Mary, even though our Mother were not–as in fact she always is–the most generous and appreciative of all God's creatures.

From The Treatise on True Devotion to Mary.

Paul Hoffer said...

To summarize, consecration means “to set aside for a sacred purpose.” As the Scriptures and Sacred Tradition shows, Mary’s life was set aside for the sole purpose of serving her Son, Our Lord. By following her example, we, too, can more fully give ourselves to Christ in a fundamental way that consecrates us to Him. We give our lives to Him in service and love by following the example of His mother.

People who consecrate themselves in this manner do so to become more devoted to Christ. Such Marian devotion, helps us grow in holiness, increases our faith, offers hope, and teaches us love. It is a prayerful and focused method that some use to draw closer to Jesus than ever before. Mary is not placed in competition with Jesus. She is the means by which we can become more united with Him. And if you think differently, offer proof, not sentimentality that Marian devotees love and adore Jesus Christ less by doing so.

Paul Hoffer said...

3. "Most Holy and Immaculate Virgin Mary, my Mother, I - the most miserable of all
sinners - have recourse to you today, the Mother of my Lord.

"I venerate you, O great Queen, and thank you for all the graces you have obtained for
me, espcially for having delivered me from hell, which I have so often deserved.

I love you, O my very kind sovereign, and for your love, I commit myself to serve you
forever, and tend all my efforts to make you loved by others too. I place all my hopes
and all my salvation in you.

Accept me as your servant, and receive me under your protection, O Mother of
Mercies. And since you are so powerful over God, deliver me from all temptations or
obtain for me the strength to conquer them until death. "

Me: You do not offer attribution where you got this prayer It is much altered from the actual prayer. Here is the actual prayer found at the end of the English translation of Part One of St. Alphonsus de Liguori’s The Glories of Mary pp. 333-334, which is much different from the version you use.

OH most holy, immaculate Virgin, and my mother Mary, to thee who art the mother of my Lord, the queen of the world, the advocate, the hope, the refuge of sinners, I, the most miserable of all, have recourse to-day.I adore thee, oh great queen, and thank thee for all the favors thou hast hitherto granted me, especially for having delivered me from hell, which I have so often deserved. I love thee, oh most amiable Lady, and through the love I bear thee promise that I will always serve thee, and do all that I can that thou mayest also be loved by others. I place in thee all my hopes of salvation; accept me for thy servant, and receive me under thy mantle, oh thou mother of mercy. And since thou art so powerful with God, deliver me from all temptations, or obtain for me the strength to conquer them always until death. From thee l ask a true love for Jesus; from thee I hope to die a good death. Oh, my mother, by the love thou bearest to God, I pray thee always to help me, but most of all at the last moment of my life. Do not leave me until thou seest me actually safe in heaven, blessing thee, and singing thy mercies throughout all eternity. Amen. Thus I hope. Thus may it be.

Paul Hoffer said...

Note St. Alphonsus says that Mary is powerful with God, he does not make Mary
pwerful over God. And again what does the prayer ask for? To receive a perfect love of Christ. For some reason, that part got left out again. And it is critical to understanding the prayer. Omission of important facts makes your argument nothing more than a misguided opinion.

And I would suggest that people who love Christ perfectly would probably be able to avoid temptations. I would note too that for St. Alphonsus, the whole point of Marian devotion is to experience Christ as Mary experienced Him, to become as close to Him as Mary did, to be united to Him as Mary was in the flesh and in the spirit.

I am presuming that you put forth your best argument against Marian devotion in your comments. It has been refuted. I would suspect that the links that you provide in your comments present just as flawed opinions so I am not going to waste my time refuting them today. Come back with an actual argument and I will try to address it.

God bless!

Ken said...

Paul,
Wow; you overloaded the internet here! :)

I understand that you think that I have been refuted; and I can see how you and Roman Catholics make these justifications for the whole matrix of centuries of Marian devotion, piety, statues, doctrines, and dogmas, but in the end, you have exalted her beyond what the Scriptures say, and created a massive amount of extra things that simply take away from the focus and emphasis on Christ Himself. It really is ridiculous, blasphemous, and therefore ugly. I got the prayers from the Mary site that I gave you. All the pictures of Mary are Mary by herself, as a Queen, etc. This kind of thing, even with the justifications and eventually getting to mentioning Jesus in some of the prayers, guts the NT of its meaning when it says,

"for through Him (Jesus) we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father" Ephesians 2:18
There is just nothing about going through Mary at all.

Mary brought Jesus into the world, and we believe that, and in the virgin conception of Christ. (Matthew 1, Luke 1-2)

The early church fathers spoke of her as a "new Eve" or "second Eve", undoing the curse of sin that was brought into the world by Eve's disobedience. In that sense, Mary was the instrumental cause or means by which the Messiah came into the World, Christ, who is the source of Salvation (Hebrews 5:9). That is all Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian meant. In that sense we can agree. But they never speak of praying to her, making statues or icons, etc.

Anyway, your whole emphasis, and your church's, for centuries, eclipsed and overshadowed Christ as the main emphasis.

Your traditions are not apostolic traditions. They are traditions that were accelerated after 431 and 451 AD, and the whole "Theotokos" (the one who bears/carries God) theology.

Since we believe in the Virgin Birth, the Deity of Christ, and the original intension of Theotokos (to be about Jesus' Deity), we have no need for all that other stuff that you added on for centuries that has encrusted many Roman Catholics to a focus on Mary to the exclusion of Christ. These are dangerous "traditions of man" - as the Scriptures warn us about in Mark 7 and Matthew 15 and Colossians 2:8.

I don't think using Jesus' speaking to Moses and Elijah is a good parallel at all. Jesus, as God the Son, has that prerogative, and they came down to Him. It is a massive stretch to then take that and say that we can therefore seek out dead saints and call upon them, etc.

Continued

Ken said...


I don't think you refuted me at all; even though you think you have. The chain of connections and the method of your argumentation, is a system of argumentation and justification that seems to amount to sophistry, and is what Irenaeus about the Gnostics, how they neglect the context and connections of Scriptural passages, and take verses from here and there and then connect them to each other, like taking an image of a man/king and then making something totally new - like a dog or a fox, etc.
Against Heresies, Book 1, 8, 1

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.ii.ix.html

1. Such, then, is their system, which neither the prophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered, but of which they boast that beyond all others they have a perfect knowledge. They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures; and, to use a common proverb, they strive to weave ropes of sand, while they endeavor to adapt with an air of probability to their own peculiar assertions the parables of the Lord, the sayings of the prophets, and the words of the apostles, in order that their scheme may not seem altogether without support. In doing so, however, they disregard the order and the connection of the Scriptures, and so far as in them lies, dismember and destroy the truth. By transferring passages, and dressing them up anew, and making one thing out of another, they succeed in deluding many through their wicked art in adapting the oracles of the Lord to their opinions. Their manner of acting is just as if one, when a beautiful image of a king has been constructed by some skillful artist out of precious jewels, should then take this likeness of the man all to pieces, should rearrange the gems, and so fit them together as to make them into the form of a dog or of a fox, and even that but poorly executed; and should then maintain and declare that this was the beautiful image of the king which the skilful artist constructed, pointing to the jewels which had been admirably fitted together by the first artist to form the image of the king, but have been with bad effect transferred by the latter one to the shape of a dog, and by thus exhibiting the jewels, should deceive the ignorant who had no conception what a king’s form was like, and persuade them that that miserable likeness of the fox was, in fact, the beautiful image of the king. In like manner do these persons patch together old wives’ fables, and then endeavour, by violently drawing away from their proper connection, words, expressions, and parables whenever found, to adapt the oracles of God to their baseless fictions. We have already stated how far they proceed in this way with respect to the interior of the Pleroma.

with my emphasis in bold.

The Roman Catholic system of destroying context and connection things wrongly and using other sources (man made traditions) demonstrates you guys are more like the Gnostics.

Paul Hoffer said...

Ken, rather than responding in deatil to your comments, I will do so on my own blog separately. Briefly, in a nutshell, you have not made the case that Marian devotion leads people away from Christ because that is not its purpose or intent. You mention St. Irenaeus' Against Heresies. Here is what he says about the Blessed Virgin Mary:

4. In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to your word. Luke 1:38 But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise they were both naked, and were not ashamed, Genesis 2:25 inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty. And it has, in fact, happened that the first compact looses from the second tie, but that the second tie takes the position of the first which has been cancelled. For this reason did the Lord declare that the first should in truth be last, and the last first. Matthew 19:30, Matthew 20:16 And the prophet, too, indicates the same, saying, instead of fathers, children have been born unto you. For the Lord, having been born the First-begotten of the dead, Revelation 1:5 and receiving into His bosom the ancient fathers, has regenerated them into the life of God, He having been made Himself the beginning of those that live, as Adam became the beginning of those who die. 1 Corinthians 15:20-22 Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith. (Book III:22, 1)



Paul Hoffer said...

And,

For as Eve was seduced by the word of an angel to flee from God, having rebelled against His Word, so Mary by the word of an angel received the glad tidings that she would bear God by obeying his Word. The former was seduced to disobey God, but the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. As the human race was subjected to death through [the act of] a virgin, so it was saved by a virgin.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:19,1.

PeaceByJesus said...

Two more links with lots of quotes of many Roman Catholics in history who have worshiped Mary.
the distinctions between latria, dulia, and hyperdulia are distinctions without a difference.

http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/06/08/we-dont-worship-mary-pt-1/

http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/06/15/we-dont-worship-mary-pt2/


Thanks. You may find a basic study of the words used for worship useful, by the grace of God.

One would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes and powers to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them

Which manner of adulation would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine that by playing word games then they can avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.

Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?

Caths should only do (and I should do more of) what Mary and every believer in Scripture did in praying to Heaven, which was to pray directly to the Lord, not saintly secretaries. But they must truly become born again for that.

Instead, Caths basically say, As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes... (Jeremiah 44:16-17)

PeaceByJesus said...

being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise they were both naked, and were not ashamed, Genesis 2:25 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children:

But i just heard a priests teach that Adam and Eve were so intelligent that they would have been able to tell you all about how a car worked by a cursory examination! Good thing we have the unofficial Catholic Internet magisterium to correct us.

But being a virgin and thus being not ashamed is part of Jerome's imbalanced beliefs regarding virginity and marital relations, in which the latter is necessarily an unclean thing, a view shared by some other so-called "church fathers" (not of the NT church) such a Augustine, who taught that marital relations "cannot be effected without the ardour of lust," Heb. 13:4 notwithstanding. — On Marriage and Concupiscence (Book I, cp. 27);

Jerome saw marriage as so inferior to virginity, celibacy and continence, that he engaged in specious reasoning and abused Scripture to support his extreme imbalanced views, teaching,

"It is not disparaging wedlock to prefer virginity. No one can make a comparison between two things if one is good and the other evil ." (''Letter'' 22).

On First Corinthians 7 he reasons, "It is good, he says, for a man not to touch a woman. If it is good not to touch a woman, it is bad to touch one: for there is no opposite to goodness but badness. But if it be bad and the evil is pardoned, the reason for the concession is to prevent worse evil."

"You surely admit that he is no bishop who during his episcopate begets children. The reverse is the case—if he be discovered, he will not be bound by the ordinary obligations of a husband, but will be condemned as an adulterer."

Then we have this false dilemma:

"If we are to pray always, it follows that we must never be in the bondage of wedlock, for as often as I render my wife her due, I cannot pray."

And like other RC apologists he resorted to compelling Scripture to i support his perverse doctrine, teaching that,

this too we must observe, at least if we would faithfully follow the Hebrew, that while Scripture on the first, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth days relates that, having finished the works of each, “God saw that it was good,” on the second day it omitted this altogether, leaving us to understand that two is not a good number because it destroys unity, and prefigures the marriage compact. Hence it was that all the animals which Noah took into the ark by pairs were unclean. Odd numbers denote cleanness. St. Jerome, Against Jovinianus Book 1 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.vi.I.html

So much for 2 x 2 evangelism, while "if we would faithfully follow the Hebrew," then we would see that, "God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." (Genesis 1:31)

Jerome's teaching on Mary no more warrants belief than his teaching here.

The oft-quoted RC priest John A. Hardon, S.J stated, "some of the Fathers [as Athanasius and John Damascene] were so firmly persuaded of the natural integrity of our first parents that they derived marriage from original sin." (Harding: http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/God/God_013.htm)

For John of Damascus wrote,

In Paradise virginity held sway. Indeed, Divine Scripture tells that both Adam and Eve were naked and were not ashamed... — John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter XXIV;

Thus he believes that if they had engaged in marital relations then they would have been ashamed, and goes on to say that marital relations was only due to the Fall.

Ken said...

"Peace by Jesus"
Yes; exactly!
Thanks for lots of great information.

Which manner of adulation would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine that by playing word games then they can avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.

Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?


Exactly!

Hardon doesn't give the Athanasius reference. That work on virginity that is attributed to Athanasius - not part of the standard translated works by Athanasius and does not seem that it was written by him, given all the other good and Biblical thinking behind his good books.

The quote from John of Damascus shows he doesn't read in context, for (Genesis 2:24-25) verse 24 of Genesis 2 comes before verse 25, showing that there was sex before the fall, and without shame. Otherwise, verse 24 makes no sense - "cleave to his wife and become one flesh".

24 "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed."
Genesis 2:24-25

The way Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, and Jerome describe sex and marriage was truly a massive negative in historical theology. Augustine seems to have suffered from a lot of guilt from his pre-Christian days.

PeaceByJesus said...

The quote from John of Damascus shows he doesn't read in context, for (Genesis 2:24-25) verse 24 of Genesis 2 comes before verse 25, showing that there was sex before the fall, and without shame. Otherwise, verse 24 makes no sense - "cleave to his wife and become one flesh".

Or at least the martial relations is sanctioned before the Fall, and the sanctification of this union is what describes marriage. And the intention not to procreate is actually a provision for annulment under canon law. And celibacy certainly has its advantages for the spiritual life, esp. in times of persecution, yet all but 2 of the apostles were married, and which is the normative state of NT pastors.

Yet virginity is so highly exalted above that which written that it is a necessary attribute of the exalted Mary of Catholicism, as one who vowed to remain a virgin before marriage. Yet which would have required the sanction of either her father or her husband. (Num. 13) If the latter, I think Joseph should get more esteem!

The way Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, and Jerome describe sex and marriage was truly a massive negative in historical theology. Augustine seems to have suffered from a lot of guilt from his pre-Christian days.

Meaning that he could not conceive of physical desire not being lust, or at least in marriage:

...the very embrace which is lawful and honourable cannot be effected without the ardour of lust, so as to be able to accomplish that which appertains to the use of reason and not of lust....This is the carnal concupiscence, which, while it is no longer accounted sin in the regenerate, yet in no case happens to nature except from sin. (On Marriage and Concupiscence (Book I, cp. 27); http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15071.htm)

Add to that party Tertullian, who argued that second marriage, having been freed from the first by death, "will have to be termed no other than a species of fornication," partly based on the reasoning that such involves desiring to marry a women out of sexual ardor. (An Exhortation to Chastity,'' Chapter IX.—Second Marriage a Species of Adultery, Marriage Itself Impugned, as Akin to Adultery, ANF, v. 4, p. 84.])

Scripture is a book of balance, and God hates a false balance, and which Catholicism and cults impenitently engage in, though we may do so some degree ourselves. .

Ken said...

Very good "Peace by Jesus" !
Thanks for finding the exact references where Augustine and Tertullian said some imbalanced things about marriage.

It is really shocking that in early to medieval church history, (before it became a discipline rule for all priests to not be married), that if a priest was married, he was expected to stop all conjugal relations, even within marriage.

I wonder if there is an article on the development of this through history. There probably is; and a book. When I have time, I will search.

PeaceByJesus said...

Paul Hoffer refuted on prayer to created beings in Heaven, pt. 1

What can we say about the dead?

A. The dead” in Christ are not dead, but are alive. Proof: Mt. 22: 31-32 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] ; Heb. 12:1


Which simply does not teach that they or any created beings in Heaven were ever prayed to by those on earth, despite prayer being a most common fundamental practice, and with the Holy Spirit inspiring the recording of approx 200 in Scripture - all to God!

B. They are equal to the angels. Proof: Lk. 20:35-36

That is not a proof text for equality, for it simply refers to their nature as spirit beings, no longer marrying, versus having the power of angels.

Regardless, absolutely nowhere do we see anyone except pagans praying to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord, despite the abundance of angels, and of saints after the resurrection in Heaven.


C. Nothing including death can separate us from each other or from Jesus Christ.
Proof: Rom. 8:38-39


Which simply does not translate into having all of the Lord's attributes, nor mean that all believers can communicate with believers in Heaven and that they can with us, without such two-way personal communication requiring both to somehow be in the same location, unlike God.

And even if believers could hear prayer in Heaven, it still does not mean that believers in Heaven can hear all the multitudinous prayers addressed to them and respond, unlike God, nor that this is what God wills, while the Spirit only examples and instructs believers to address the Lord in prayer to Heaven.

D. When we die, we beomce united with Christ and one in spirit with Him.
Proof: 1 Cor. 6:17


Which is another fallacious "proof," as that text (But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. - 1 Corinthians 6:17) not only refers to this being a present reality, but rather than supporting prayer to created beings in Heaven, it only supports closeness to Christ.

E. We are so united with Him, we partake in His glory and divine nature.
Proof: 1 Pt. 5:1 ; 2 Pt. 1:4


Which still simply does not translate into possessing all His attributes, but perhaps the Catholic wants to support Mormonic doctrine.

F. The dead intercede for us.
Proof: 2 Maccabees 15: 11-16; Revelation 6: 9-11


Revelation 6: 9-11 is another wrested text, as it in no way refers to intercessory prayer for those on earth, but is a cry for judgment due to their own blood that was shed: "And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?" (Revelation 6:10)

Rather than intercession, it is a question as to what God determined, as the answer shows.

Other than this text, the Cath must resort to an apocryphal book which teaches that souls that die due to mortal sin may be saved, contrary to RC doctrine.

PeaceByJesus said...

Part 2 of refutation of Paul Hoffer:

G. It is permissible to talk to or pray for the dead (but not engage in
divination using them).
Proof: Daniel 3:86; My. 17:1-3; Lk. 7:12-15] ; Jn 11:38-44; Acts 9: 36-4; 2
Tim. 1:16-18


The issue is that of praying to created beings in Heaven, which none of these example or teach. There is a vast difference btwn merely speaking to a dead person on earth, and that of praying to or even beseeching one in Heaven for help, which presumes that have Divine power to hear all such.

There actually is no Daniel 3:86, nor anything in that book or chapter that supports praying to believers in Heaven, and I do not know what My. 17:1-3 refers to, while Lk. 7:12-15 as well as Jn 11:38-44 only teaches that Christ, and Peter in the case of Acts 9: 36-41, spoke to the body of a person on earth that was dead to arise, which is certainly not that of praying to one in Heaven for help. Nor was any of these that of two-communication btwn beings on earth with those in Heaven, which (from what I recall) in Scripture required both to somehow be present and speaking in the same location, while only God is shown able to hear from Heaven all the prayers on earth, mental or vocal.

Finally, 2 Timothy 1:16-18 does not example any prayer or communication with believers in Heaven, nor that of seeking intercession by them, by is simply a commendation by Paul of Onesiphorus who helped him, and thus expressed a desire that he find mercy on the day of the Lord, the judgment seat of Christ, which occurs at His return.

Thus there simply is not talking to or praying to the dead here, and any intercession is to God regarding a future event.

H. The dead pray for us. Proof: Revelation 5:8

Wrong again, for neither angels or elders offering up prayers in memorial (Rev. 5:8 and 8:3,4; cf. Lv. 2:2,15,16; 24:7; Num. 5:15) before the judgments of the last days does not evdence them being addressed in prayer, nor constitute the ability of created beings in Heaven being able to hear and respond to prayer from earth addressed to them from earth, which is unique to God.

I. The dead are aware of what is happening on earth. Proof: Mt. 17:3-5; Lk.15:7-10

Once again the issue is that of created beings in Heaven being prayed to from earth, and once again there is zero proof of that despite approx 200 prayers in Scripture. Mt. 17:3-5 refers to the transfigured Lord Jesus speaking with Moses and Elijah about His prophetic mission on a high mountain, not praying to them in Heaven from earth.

Nor does this text necessarily evidence knowledge of what is happening on earth as they only spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem, which was prophesied.

Luke 15:10 states "there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth," which simply requires that they know of another soul being written in the Lamb's book of life.

However, even if believers in Heaven know what is happening on earth, then this does not translate into praying to them.

PeaceByJesus said...



Part 3 of refutation of Paul Hoffer:

Heb. 12:1 points the cloud of witnesses see our burdens and our sins.

No it does not, as contextually the "cloud of witnesses" around believers is not speaking of literal viewing but refers to believers here having OT saints in Heb. 11 as examples of faith, and thus the exhortation that follows in Heb. 12:1 to likewise run the race of faith, "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith," (Hebrews 12:2) versus anything being said about them seeing our burdens and our sins, which the Catholic forces this text to say.

J. The dead in heaven offer our prayers to God. Proof: Rev. 5:8; 8:3-5

This is the same attempt refuted above (H).

In conclusion, faced with the profound conspicuous absence of even one example of prayer (except by pagans) to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord among the approx. 200 prayers the Holy Spirit inspired in Scripture , this being a most basic and common a practice, as well as instruction on prayer teaching that God is the one to be addressed, (Mt. 6:9) and of Christ being the only heavenly intercessor btwn God and man, (1Tim. 2:5) Catholics must resort to misappropriation of God's word.

But while Catholics make a pretense of Scriptural warrant being the basis for the veracity of their beliefs, instead it is abused as a servant compelled to serve their cultic church, with the basis for the veracity of their beliefs resting upon the unScriptural premise of her own ensured veracity.

For 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.

PeaceByJesus said...

It is really shocking that in early to medieval church history, (before it became a discipline rule for all priests to not be married), that if a priest was married, he was expected to stop all conjugal relations, even within marriage.

I wonder if there is an article on the development of this through history. There probably is; and a book. When I have time, I will search.


Catholic Customs & Traditions: A Popular Guide, by Greg Dues provides a little, and most in regard to celibacy is provided here by the grace of God.

PeaceByJesus said...

As for the title “Queen of Heaven,” Mary is called that, both of them due to Christology. Mary is the Queen of Heaven because Jesus Christ is King of Heaven.
..
All of which is thinking of morals above that which is written, (cf. 1Co. 4:6) and all the rationalization provided for doing so will not justify engaging in what the Holy Spirit refuses to do.

The only Queen of Heaven, and supplication to her is by pagans, and Christ's kingship is in His kingdom which is not of this world, (Jn. 18:36) and the places believers have in it is not due to physical relations but spiritual.

And in which the Lord taught (in response to a call to leave preaching so as to give special heed to the desire of His physical brethren) that those who likewise do the will of His Father in Heaven are His mother and brethren. (Mt. 12:46-50) In contrast, while mortals can be His mother, He leaves out any being His Father.

And in contrast to the brevity given to holy Mary is the extensive press which Lord by the Holy Spirit gives to the instrumentality and sacrificial labor and suffering of Paul for Christ, who is relatively marginalized compared to the demigoddess the fabricated Mary of Catholicism is exalted as, far above what is written.

Scott Windsor, Sr. said...

Scott Windsor, Sr. said...

Christians should not be so worried about how things "appear" to ignorant Muslims. We know how and why we do things. Catholics should not be so worried about how things "appear" to ignorant Protestants. We know how and why we do things. The ignorant often attack things they do not fully understand.

Ken said...

You should worry, since it (statues, icons, praying and bowing before them; talking to statues and kissing them, etc.) has been a bad witness for 1400 years. If yours was a true church, it would want to communicate the gospel and the truth clearly and not leave unreached peoples in their ignorance.

SW: Catholics do not talk to statues, we talk to the Saint the statues represents. As for leaving people in their ignorance, I seem to recall Jesus allowing many of His own disciples to "turn and walk with Him no more" because in their ignorance they could not accept His teaching that we must eat His body and drink His blood - or we have no life in us. They said it was a hard teaching and walked away - and Jesus let them.

SW: That Muslims, Muhammed in particular, got much of his information about Christianity from Gnostic heretics - why does that fact concern me? I, as you should too, point to the REAL Christian faith which was ONLY found in the Catholic Church, especially when you're talking the time of Muhammed. When it comes to the Blessed Trinity, they (Muslims) also deny Jesus' divinity - so when you bring up a passage from the Qur'an which they deny both Christ and the Blessed Virgin divinity - are you not bothered that they are denying a legitimate part of the Blessed Trinity? Of course, there is NO Catholic teaching which states Mary is divine and/or part of the Blessed Trinity - so are you not doing more harm in not correcting them and saying, "Catholics do not teach this"? You KNOW we don't. The fact is you get your definition of the Blessed Trinity from the Catholic Church. You accept this teaching - which is not explicitly found in Scripture - because the Catholic Church defined it for you. Yes, we can glean pieces of the teaching on Trinity from various passages - but other than the Johannine Comma, it is not explicitly taught in Scripture.

PeaceByJesus said...

Refutation of Windsor (again) pt. 1.

Catholics do not talk to statues, we talk to the Saint the statues represents

Just like in Scripture. As said above, one would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them

Which manner of adulation would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine that by playing word games then they can avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.

"Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?"

Instead, Caths basically say the same thing as the only Queen of Heaven devotees in Scripture:

As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes... (Jeremiah 44:16-17)

As for leaving people in their ignorance, I seem to recall Jesus allowing many of His own disciples to "turn and walk with Him no more" because in their ignorance they could not accept His teaching that we must eat His body and drink His blood - or we have no life in us.

That the Lord meant this literally (which Catholics do not take as purely actually literal as it sounds, so that the crucified flesh they ate would look, taste and scientifically test as being so, versus what requires baptized neoPlatonic Aristotelian reasoning) is begging the question, and instead letting these souls walk away is consistent with the Lord's use of the physical in in the gospel of John in order to teach the spiritual.

In John 2, the Lord spoke of destroying the temple and in 3 days raising it up again, (Jn. 2:19) which was taken as literal, and which the Lord allowed,and thus it it was even a change at His trial and crucifixion. (Mr 14:58; 15:29) But only by reading more do we see the explanation.

Likewise in John 3, the Lord speaks of a second birth, which was taken literally. But only by reading more do we see the explanation.

Likewise in John 4, the Lord speaks of "living water" which was taken literally. But only by reading more do we see the explanation.

Likewise in John 4:34 the Lord states that His "meat" was do to and complete the will of His Father, which was taken literally. But only by reading more do we see the explanation.

Likewise in John 6 the Lord states that consuming Him is necessary to obtain spiritual life - which is nowhere the means in all of Scripture, but believing the gospel message is - which was taken literally,
But only by reading more do we see the explanation.

As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. (John 6:57)

And the Lord "lived" by every word of God, (Mt. 4:4) and thus His "meat" was to do His will, and thus we are to "live," for as further explained, the words the Lord spoke are spirit, and life. And Jn. 6:63) And which is the only explanation consistent with Scripture and in John, who does not even provide the narrative of the Lord's supper, "take, eat..." but constantly teaches that believing the word of God brings life, and we are to live by it.

Extensive refutation of the Catholic corruption of the Lord supper is here , by God's grace.

PeaceByJesus said...

Refutation of Windsor (again) pt. 2.

The fact is you get your definition of the Blessed Trinity from the Catholic Church. You accept this teaching - which is not explicitly found in Scripture - because the Catholic Church defined it for you.

What an absurd fantasy! So SS means a teaching must be explicit in Scripture? How do you like your straw? And we reject certain Catholic teachings as lacking Scriptural warrant. yet we vigorous defend the Trinity from Scripture alone because Rome defined it for us? What would we even do this unless the validity of this teaching does not rest upon the authority or veracity of Rome, but upon Scriptural warrant?

You are simply ignorant of the basis for doctrine, which does not require an explicit statement, "God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit," yet since all there are called God, and attributes of personality, and unique Divine attributes, titles and glory are ascribed to the Son (especially) and Spirit, and since God refers to Himself as "US/Our," then it would be contradictory to not believe in God as a Trinity of persons all sharing the same Divine nature.

You can only wish prayers and devotion to Mary had such, but instead such is ONLY seen with idolators, which Mary worshipers are. And that is what fervent Marian devotion would be called in Scripture .

Moreover, it seems your argument is also that if believe something Rome defined them we should submit to all else they defined, which is as Scriptural and logical as arguing that the NT church needed to wholly submit to the Scribes and Pharisees since the Jews established writings as Scripture which the itinerant preachers the church began with used.

I have a broken watch to give you which tells the correct time without fail twice a day.

Ken said...

Very good "Peace by Jesus".

Scott Windsor wrote:

As for leaving people in their ignorance, I seem to recall Jesus allowing many of His own disciples to "turn and walk with Him no more" because in their ignorance they could not accept His teaching that we must eat His body and drink His blood - or we have no life in us.

In addition to what Peace by Jesus wrote, Jesus first went to the people and spoke/taught/preached the gospel to the people. My point was that the early church, medieval church, and modern Roman Catholic Church did not try much at all at even the beginnings of evangelism or missions to the Arabs in inner Arabia.
So, that example of Jesus is not a good example, because He already taught them and spoke the word of God to them.

Ken said...

As Richard Bell wrote:

"FROM one point of view the triumph of Islam in the East in the seventh century A.D. may be regarded as the judgement of history upon a degenerate Christianity. The degeneration of the Church may be said to have begun in the fourth century. The seeds of it were present earlier, but they could not well develop in a persecuted Church. When the Church was freed from the danger of persecution by the accession of Constantine, they began to develop rapidly. To my mind the evil was not, as is often held, the alliance of the Church with the State, or at any rate not that in itself. True, the fact that Christianity became then the recognised and prevailing religion, brought worldliness into the Church. That would probably have happened apart from any relation to the State so soon as Christianity ceased to be persecuted as such, and by its own success became fashionable. It is true too that ultimately the alliance of Church and State became so close that the bishops and other high dignitaries of the Church became, in a manner, State officials. So much was theChurch a part of the Roman Empire, that the acceptance of Christianity was regarded as a sign of subserviency to the latter. That fact is not without its significance in trying to realise conditions in Arabia in the time of Muhammad. It helps to explain the readiness with which even Christian Arabs accepted an independent Arabian prophet. It also no doubt played a part in forming Muhammad's ideas of what religion was. If we sometimes feel ourselves brought up with a shock against the fact that Islam is apparently incurably political, is, as we say, not only a religion but a state, we must remember that that was what Muhammad saw in Christianity, and also what he gathered from the Old Testament. (page 1 and ff.)


. . .

Harnack's statement, that "there are no pre-Muhammadan translations of the Bible into Arabic—and that is strong proof that Christianity had not found any footing at all among the Arabs in early times", is fairly conclusive. It is borne out by study of conditions at a later period. The language of Christianity in the East was Aramaic (or Syriac), and there is no evidence of a Christian Church using Arabic in its services. The nature of Muhammad's own mission, which was to be the Prophet of his own people, and to give to them a Holy Book in their own language, is confirmation of that point of view. What we have to do with is not a native Arab Church, or any deep impression of Christianity upon the Arab tribes, though some of them were Christian in name, but rather with Christian Churches on the confines of Arabia exercising upon the ruder inhabitants of the Peninsula a certain amount of influence and attraction. In this way a certain knowledge of Christianity must have been diffused throughout Arabia. (page 17)

. . .

In a way the existence of a Christian Church here belongs to the Christian encirclement of Arabia rather than to the history of Christianity in Arabia itself. (page 33)

If we ask for evidence of the influence of Christianity upon Arab thought and life, the results appear at first sight discouraging. One naturally turns first to the pre-Islamic poets. In their verses one finds indications enough that they knew something about Christianity. They speak often enough of the wine-seller, and sometimes designate him as a Christian.1 They refer to the externals of Christianity, its churches and places of worship, the wooden gongs or bells which were used to summon worshippers to them, . . . (page 43)

Richard Bell, "The Origin of Islam in its Christian Environment". See the full book below.

http://muhammadanism.com/bell/origin/p000i.htm

Ken said...

Also, verse 65 - John 6:65 tells us the reason why they turned away in verse 66 - "For this reason, I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him from the Father."

The reason why they turned away was because the Father was not working on the inside of them to draw them to Jesus - see verse 44 also of the same chapter.

verse 55 and "true drink" and "true food" reminds us of John 15:1 - "I am the true vine". He obviously did not mean that the bread was literally His body and the drink/wine was literally His blood. (John 6:55) and verse 63 also proves this. John 6:63.

They are obviously symbols of the future work of the atonement at the cross; nothing about Transubstantiation at all in his passage; zero.

PeaceByJesus said...

Richard Bell (1876–1952) was a British Arabist at the University of Edinburgh. Between 1937 and 1939 he published a translation of the Qur'an, and in 1953 his Introduction to the Qur'an was published (revised in 1970 by W. Montgomery Watt). Both works have been influential in Quranic studies in the west. - WP

PeaceByJesus said...

verse 55 and "true drink" and "true food" reminds us of John 15:1 - "I am the true vine". He obviously did not mean that the bread was literally His body and the drink/wine was literally His blood. (John 6:55) and verse 63 also proves this. John 6:63.


Indeed. In addition, 6:53 presents an unresolved problem for all those RCs who claim we need to take it literally, and thus physically consume the "real" flesh and blood of Christ:

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. (John 6:53)

For this statement is as much an absolute imperative as other "verily verily" statements, and if taken literally then it plainly means that no one who denies and has not consumed the "real" flesh and blood of Christ does not have spiritual life in them. Yet in addition to the fact that Scripture teaches that it is by believing the word of the gospel message of salvation that one obtains spiritual life in them, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and nowhere did souls obtain that spiritual life by literally physically eating anything, even modern Rome affirms Scripture-centric Prots as being born again.

• LUMEN GENTIUM 16: "..there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical [Protestant] communities…"

"They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood." —

When RCs presume to enlist Scripture to support their traditions of men, then they contradict either Scripture or their church.

Jamie Donald said...

This is a problem with your method of arguments.

PBJ, 9 Aug: "What an absurd fantasy! So SS means a teaching must be explicit in Scripture? How do you like your straw?"

I am perfectly willing to agree that the concept of sola scriptura does not require all doctrine to be "explicitly defined" in scripture. And I understand the position that it is possible to derive sound doctrine, such as the Trinity from scripture.

But when Paul used scripture derivatively, PBJ said (7 Aug): "... faced with the profound conspicuous absence of even one example ...."

Examples are, by definition, specific or "explicit" things. Thus, you commit the same strawman fallacy of which you accuse Scott.

PeaceByJesus said...

I am perfectly willing to agree that the concept of sola scriptura does not require all doctrine to be "explicitly defined" in scripture. And I understand the position that it is possible to derive sound doctrine, such as the Trinity from scripture.

But when Paul used scripture derivatively, PBJ said (7 Aug): "... faced with the profound conspicuous absence of even one example ...."

Examples are, by definition, specific or "explicit" things. Thus, you commit the same strawman fallacy of which you accuse Scott.


But the argument against prayer to created beings in Heaven (PTCBIH) does not rest simply upon the absence of one example of this (see above, Paul Hoffer refuted on prayer to created beings in Heaven, pt. 1, 2, 3) for which the Holy Spirit would not provide at least one example amid the 200 prayers to Heaven. yet the exceedingly common basic nature of the practice at issue, and despite multitudes to pray to, and with only pagans engaging in PTCBIH makes this absence profound.

And together with instruction on prayer specifically only addressing God, and with Him being the only one even shown able to hear all prayer from Heaven, and other evidences, overwhelmingly refutes the derivative arguments for PTCBIH.

To assert that created beings in Heaven are to be prayed to based on extrapolation from earthly relationships, when that is only shown to be a Divine privilege and power, is unjustified presumption.