An Observation

[Randy_Carson]

I’d ask you to read a few pieces of scripture below and then tell me if you still consider that sola scriptura as “tradition of men”.

Luke 11:28
But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

John 8:46-48 (New King James Version)
46 Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me? 47 He who is of God hears God’s words; …”

Romans 10:17
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Ephesians 6:17
And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

1 Thessalonians 2:13
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

1 John 2:5
But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.

Revelation 22:18
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Revelation 22:19
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Amen! Catholics love all of those verses just as we do all 73 books of the Bible. However, none of those verses prove sola scriptura.

A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura
By Dave Armstrong
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea3.asp

1. Sola Scriptura Is Not Taught in the Bible

Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is a “standard of truth”—even the preeminent one—but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition and the Church. The Bible doesn’t teach that. Catholics agree that Scripture is materially sufficient. In other words, on this view, every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. But no biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the formal authority or rule of faith in isolation from the Church and Tradition. Sola scriptura can’t even be deduced from implicit passages.

---

2. The “Word of God” Refers to Oral Teaching Also

“Word” in Holy Scripture often refers to a proclaimed, oral teaching of prophets or apostles. What the prophets spoke was the word of God regardless of whether or not their utterances were recorded later as written Scripture. So for example, we read in Jeremiah:

“For twenty-three years . . . the word of the Lord has come to me and I have spoken to you again and again . . . ‘But you did not listen to me,’ declares the Lord. . . . Therefore the Lord Almighty says this: ‘Because you have not listened to my words. . . .’” (Jer. 25:3, 7-8 [NIV]).

This was the word of God even though some of it was not recorded in writing. It had equal authority as writing or proclamation-never-reduced-to-writing. This was true also of apostolic preaching. When the phrases “word of God” or “word of the Lord” appear in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to Scripture. For example:

“When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13).

If we compare this passage with another, written to the same church, Paul appears to regard oral teaching and the word of God as synonymous:

“Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).

---

3. Tradition Is Not a Dirty Word

Protestants often quote the verses in the Bible where corrupt traditions of men are condemned (e.g., Matt. 15:2–6; Mark 7:8–13; Col. 2:8). Of course, Catholics agree with this. But it’s not the whole truth. True, apostolic Tradition also is endorsed positively. This Tradition is in total harmony with and consistent with Scripture.

---

4. Jesus and Paul Accepted Non-Biblical Oral and Written Traditions

Protestants defending sola scriptura will claim that Jesus and Paul accepted the authority of the Old Testament. This is true, but they also appealed to other authority outside of written revelation. For example:
a. The reference to “He shall be called a Nazarene” cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was “spoken by the prophets” (Matt. 2:23). Therefore, this prophecy, which is considered to be “God’s word,” was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.

b. In Matthew 23:2–3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based “on Moses’ seat,” but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of “teaching succession” from Moses on down.

c. In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that “followed” the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does.

d. “As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses” (2 Tim. 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Ex. 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

5. The Apostles Exercised Authority at the Council of Jerusalem

In the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6–30), we see Peter and James speaking with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit) that was binding on all Christians:

“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity” (Acts 15:28–29).

In the next chapter, we read that Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling around “through the cities,” and Scripture says that “they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4).

---

6. Pharisees, Sadducees, and Oral, Extrabiblical Tradition

Christianity was derived in many ways from the Pharisaical tradition of Judaism. The Sadducees, on the other hand, rejected the future resurrection of the soul, the afterlife, rewards and retribution, demons and angels, and predestinarianism. The Sadducees also rejected all authoritative oral teaching and essentially believed in sola scriptura. They were the theological liberals of that time. Christian Pharisees are referred to in Acts 15:5 and Philippians 3:5, but the Bible never mentions Christian Sadducees.

The Pharisees, despite their corruptions and excesses, were the mainstream Jewish tradition, and both Jesus and Paul acknowledge this. So neither the orthodox Old Testament Jews nor the early Church was guided by the principle of sola scriptura.

---

**7. Old Testament Jews Did Not Believe in Sola Scriptura **

To give two examples from the Old Testament itself:

a. Ezra, a priest and scribe, studied the Jewish law and taught it to Israel, and his authority was binding under pain of imprisonment, banishment, loss of goods, and even death (cf. Ezra 7:26).

b. In Nehemiah 8:3, Ezra reads the Law of Moses to the people in Jerusalem. In verse 7 we find thirteen Levites who assisted Ezra and helped the people to understand the law. Much earlier, we find Levites exercising the same function (cf. 2 Chr. 17:8–9).
So the people did indeed understand the law (cf. Neh. 8:8, 12), but not without much assistance—not merely upon hearing. Likewise, the Bible is not altogether clear in and of itself but requires the aid of teachers who are more familiar with biblical styles and Hebrew idiom, background, context, exegesis and cross-reference, hermeneutical principles, original languages, etc. The Old Testament, then, teaches about a binding Tradition and need for authoritative interpreters, as does the New Testament (cf. Mark 4:33–34; Acts 8:30–31; 2 Pet. 1:20; 3:16).

---

8. Ephesians 4 Refutes the Protestant "Proof Text"

“All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16–17).

This passage doesn’t teach formal sufficiency, which excludes a binding, authoritative role for Tradition and Church. Protestants extrapolate onto the text what isn’t there. If we look at the overall context of this passage, we can see that Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13–14; 2:2; 3:14). And to use an analogy, let’s examine a similar passage:

“And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ” (Eph. 4:11–15).

If 2 Timothy 3 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then, by analogy, Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection. In Ephesians 4, the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3, yet it does not even mention Scripture.

So if all non-scriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to recognize that the absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. The Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

9. Paul Casually Assumes That His Passed-Down Tradition Is Infallible and Binding

If Paul wasn’t assuming that, he would have been commanding his followers to adhere to a mistaken doctrine. He writes:

“If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed” (2 Thess. 3:14).

“Take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them” (Rom. 16:17).

He didn’t write about “the pretty-much, mostly, largely true but not infallible doctrine which you have been taught.”

---

10. Sola Scriptura Is a Circular Position

When all is said and done, Protestants who accept sola scriptura as their rule of faith appeal to the Bible. If they are asked why one should believe in their particular denominational teaching rather than another, each will appeal to “the Bible’s clear teaching.” Often they act as if they have no tradition that guides their own interpretation.

This is similar to people on two sides of a constitutional debate both saying, “Well, we go by what the Constitution says, whereas you guys don’t.” The U.S. Constitution, like the Bible, is not sufficient in and of itself to resolve differing interpretations. Judges and courts are necessary, and their decrees are legally binding. Supreme Court rulings cannot be overturned except by a future ruling or constitutional amendment. In any event, there is always a final appeal that settles the matter.

But Protestantism lacks this because it appeals to a logically self-defeating principle and a book that must be interpreted by human beings. Obviously, given the divisions in Protestantism, simply “going to the Bible” hasn’t worked. In the end, a person has no assurance or certainty in the Protestant system. They can only “go to the Bible” themselves and perhaps come up with another doctrinal version of some disputed doctrine to add to the list. One either believes there is one truth in any given theological dispute (whatever it is) or adopts a relativist or indifferentist position, where contradictions are fine or the doctrine is so “minor” that differences “don’t matter.”

But the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are “minor” and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such a fashion. Denominationalism and divisions are vigorously condemned. The only conclusion we can reach from the Bible is what we call the “three-legged stool”: Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth. If you knock out any leg of a three-legged stool, it collapses.

 

[Cristian_B]

Mary is dead?? Gee, I thought that those who pass and are in heaven are alive in Christ. How do you know these people “I pray to” are dead? How do you know they can’t hear me? How do you know they can’t think or “anything like that?” (Actually I am quite interested in what you mean by “anything like that”). How do you know “all they do is wait for Jesus?” How do you even know who I pray to?? But, again, that is not my point. My point is that Fair Lady is telling me that it is wrong for Catholics to do things that are not in the Bible, but that it’s OK for Fair Lady to do them.

Yes, she’s asleep and buried. Nobody goes up (ascends) in Heaven but the One who came (descends) from Heaven. The idea that “souls” go to heaven at death originated in pagan religions, not the Bible. Greeks, Babylonians, Egyptians and other pagan religions had ideas such as these. Christianity over time “absorbed” religions around her to make the pagans more comfortable with Christianity. When they saw that the (new) Christianity had traditions similar to their past religion, their conversion was easier. In the end they “Christianized” the pagan beliefs and corrupted Christianity with pagan traditions. The Catholic Church says they sanctified the traditions and gave them a “new meaning”. But God, in the Old Testament, when people brought into the Holy Temple objects originally made for Baal or made for rituals to other gods, even if the priests cleaned them through fire or water (holy water, normal water… irrelevant) and even if they gave those objects a new purpose, God still commanded the destruction of such objects. Don’t you know that we are the Holy Temple of God? How can you corrupt the Temple of the Eternal God with pagan traditions? It is written that God will destroy anyone who destroys or corrupts His Temple. His Temple is Holy and so should be you: Holy because you are His Temple and because He is holy and do not let anything unclean enter in the Holy Temple of God. I still can’t imagine how somebody could have even think of corrupting It.

Jesus in the parable with Lazarus and the rich man used that wrong idea the Jews absorbed from the Greeks. The idea that the good men immediately after death went in some place [Hades] where there are fountains, trees, etc. (also known as “paradise”) and evil men went to another place dry, lonely, without trees, etc, (aka “Hell”) where they spent their eternity. In the Greek religion people from Paradise and Hell could maintain conversations. The Jews “absorbed” that idea and changed a few details. They called paradise “Abraham’s blossom” and instead of Hell being a dry and lifeless place, they filled it with flames. Jesus used their idea to teach them something else. That something was never that they go to Heaven of Hell right after death; that something was that they can’t love God and money. He didn’t want to contradict them because He wanted to save them, and to know every detail about Heaven and Hell isn’t absolutely necessary for salvation.

 

[Cristian_B]

But now, to go back on topic, Jesus never promised anyone (physical body or soul) the ascension to Heaven. He actually promised that He will send the Holy Ghost to guide us while He is away, and that He will bring Heaven to us. It is written that God will descends The New Jerusalem from Heaven down to Earth, not that we will ascend to Heaven. Our souls stay here. We will physically be “reborn” with a new body. Our soul “sleeps”.

*For the living know that they will die,
but the dead know nothing;
they have no further reward,
and even the memory of them is forgotten.(Ecclesiastes 9:5)

Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.*(Ecclesiastes 9:10)

His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish. (Psalms 146:4)

Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. (Acts 2:29)

Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. According to the Lord’s own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage each other with these words. (1 Thessalonians 4:12-18)

The dead are called “asleep” for a reason. With our last breath we enter a “sleep” with no dreams: you aren’t conscious. But when Jesus will come, that is when your new breath will be: and it will feel like only passed a second. When He will come, everyone who died in Him and had the Mark of God will receive eternal life.

From all the passages from the bible, perhaps this is the most clear:

It is not the dead who praise the LORD,
those who go down to silence;
it is we who extol the LORD,
both now and forevermore.
Praise the LORD.
(Psalms 115:17)

How can the dead people not praise the Lord if they went to Him in Heaven (I’m talking about those that you suppose that went to Heaven)? It is because they are unconscious and they are not alive. The dead cannot praise the Lord you God, only the alive can. The dead are asleep waiting for their Lord and when they will receive a new body they will praise the Lord of the universe with all their hearts, with all their soul and with all their strength. Only the alive can change and think; the dead cannot change anything and neither think.

Since the “dead” are asleep, you shouldn’t pray to Mary or other saints, because you are wasting precious time, which you could use to pray to God. He indeed can hear you and He indeed can asnwer you.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Again, I believe that I have stated my position adequately. I think that there is such a vast difference in our foundational premises that we hold to, that we would need to begin all over again to make sense of any of this. The bottom line as far as this thread goes is that I believe that praying to Mary and saints that have gone before us is error and so far no one has been able to come up with scripture to prove otherwise.

Since you have not provided any scripture to support several things you ask us to believe, you have in no way, shape, or form stated your position adequately.

You are asking me to do two contradictory things:

1. Base all my beliefs on nothing but scripture
2. Also have the beliefs you tell us which are not based on scripture

You also have a different rule for you than you do for us:

Your rule for us: What we tell you must be supported by scripture or you will not believe it
Your rule for you: What you tell us does not have to be supported by scripture but we are to believe it anyway

Quite frankly I’m shocked that you are still insisting we must support our beliefs from scripture while at the same time refusing my request to support your beliefs from scripture.

In posts 53, 61, 67, 78, and 83 you were asked to provide scripture to back up things you ask us to believe. (LittleSoldier has provided some examples in post 158.) Either provide the scripture or stop claiming everything we believe must be found in scripture. THIS IS NOW MY SIXTH REQUEST.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, she’s asleep and buried. Nobody goes up (ascends) in Heaven but the One who came (descends) from Heaven.

Several Bible passages offer implicit evidence that Mary was assumed into heaven. Both Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven (Heb. 11:5, 2 Kgs. 2:11).

 

[Cristian_B]

Several Bible passages offer implicit evidence that Mary was assumed into heaven. Both Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven (Heb. 11:5, 2 Kgs. 2:11).

I used my old friend Google.

"*Was Enoch Taken to Heaven?

Some people believe Genesis 5:24 and Hebrews 11:5 declare that God took Enoch to heaven. But is that what these verses say?

Genesis 5:24 tells us that “Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.” Hebrews 11:5 adds: “By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, ‘and was not found, because God had taken him’; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God.”

Some erroneously jump to the conclusion that Enoch was taken up into heaven, but notice the Bible nowhere says this. It simply says that God “took him.” It does not specify where he was taken.

Jesus Christ later states in the Gospel of John that “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). One of the points He makes is that one passage of the Bible cannot contradict another passage.

This same Gospel of John reveals a startling fact very pertinent to this matter: “No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven” (John 3:13).

Clearly, Jesus Christ was the only human being who had ascended into heaven. The phrase “who is in heaven” lets us know that this was written by the apostle John after Christ’s return to heaven. So even as late as this statement, no human being—and that includes Enoch—had ascended into heaven.

We later read about Enoch’s fate in Hebrews 11:5: “By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, ‘and was not found, because God had taken him’; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God.” The word rendered “taken” can also mean “transferred elsewhere.” And the New American Standard Bible says this was done “so that he would not see death”—a better translation than “did not,” as we know from the same chapter of Hebrews that he died.

Notice in verse 13 the summary given of all of the men and women of faith listed here, including Enoch: “These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth” (Hebrews 11:13). So Enoch definitely died as well as all the rest.

How, then, can it be that Enoch was transferred elsewhere so he wouldn’t see death? God doesn’t give us all the details of what happened, but a few scenarios have been proposed that do not conflict with the fact that Enoch died as the Bible says.

It may be that God transported Enoch elsewhere to keep him from being killed at a certain time—perhaps protecting him from martyrdom at the hands of angry persecutors who didn’t like his announcement of coming divine judgment (see Jude 14-16). God likewise supernaturally transported Elijah and Philip to other places on earth (see 2 Kings 2:11; Acts 8:39).

On the other hand, we should observe that Enoch died young for his time—at age 365 while those before and after him lived into their 800s and 900s. Because of this, some speculate that God “took him” from life prematurely so that he would not have to live out his remaining centuries in a miserable world (compare Isaiah 57:1-2). His next moment of consciousness will be the resurrection. In this case, “so that he would not see death” would refer to his not having to experience the process of dying—his life ending instantly.

Still others, putting the likelihood of Enoch experiencing persecution together with his early death, have concluded that Enoch was murdered—martyred for his preaching. Enoch being taken and not found would then refer to God removing his body and burying it—as happened with Moses (Deuteronomy 34:5-6).

In this case, Enoch being taken or transferred so that he would not see death is taken as separate matter—that of him being spiritually converted, transferred from the world’s ways to God’s way of living, so that he would not see ultimate death in the lake of fire (compare Colossians 1:13; John 8:51).

We don’t have enough details to know exactly what is intended. But we do know that Enoch did not skip death and go to heaven. He died, and no human being has ascended to heaven except Jesus Christ.*"

I still haven’t found anything about Elijah though, so I’ll keep researching.

 

[MacDaddy]

So you are now saying that the “saints” that are mentioned there ARE NOT the Church when numerous times in the NT the church is also referred to as “Saints”??? I can assume from your response that in the Book of Revelation that those who come out of the great tribulation is also not the church as well?

These are representative of the cries of the redeemed in the tribulation; which God has/is remembering.

Does your church sing the hymn “The Church’s one Foundation”??? If you do, did you miss the verse about “the Saints their watch are keeping their cry goes up, “how long” and soon the night of weeping shall be the morn of song.” But then I can see from your listing of who you are you list yourself as only Baptized as a Catholic as an infant. Does that man you are now Agnostic to make such responses that are so ignorant of such simple Biblical principles.

These are the cries God has remembered while these were on earth crying out to God. Same as above.

Oh it is true that God hears the cry of the afflicted, because he is hearing our cry’s of anguish for you from your response. Be well assured that we will be praying for you to find your way to the truth.

My prayer for you is for humility before your brothers and sisters and more importantly before God. Pride is something God cannot work with and stunts ones spiritual growth.

 

[MacDaddy]

MacDaddy:

Originally Posted by MacDaddy View Post
Are you an obedient Catholic? Your church clearly defines worship and it is a matter of the degree, higher for God, then Mary , then saints, stautes, relics etc.

Really doesn’t matter what you call it; what matters is what will God call it? Is it a violation of the first or second commandments? I don’t know with certainty; do you?

Funny after reading your posts, especially this one you must have ignored this.
Matthew 7:1 “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. 3 And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? 5 Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."

Funny those Catholic specks are rather tiny compared to your plank.

First, there is a distinction in the Bible between discerning and criticizing.Why was Jesus bringing up “don’t judge”? What were the Pharisees doing? What is Jesus talking about? Jesus is speaking about is the critical, judgmental, condemning, self-righteous attitude and egotism of the Pharisees. They weren’t criticizing people on the basis of their sin. Pharisees criticized because of peoples personality, character, weaknesses, frailties, and even perhaps the way they looked or dressed or they didn’t do things the way they did them. They were criticizing their motives, reading their hearts, which they can’t see nor perceive because of their humanness. Who alone can read the hearts intention?

Secondly, what was the context of my discussion above? The poster said that praying to Mary was not worship, which is contrary to the teaching of her own Church, which I provided the link to show the poster. The question of being a good Catholic is a distinction and contrast you will find throughout CAF. I don’t define nor could I, I am not Catholic. I was not questioning if she was; I was asking in light of the contradiction post she made in light of the Catholic teaching. Was this judging or criticizing the posters intentions or just pointing out what her Church actually teaches?

The irony to all of this is that people are judging or criticizing on superficial basis. We are called to discern truth from error and confront that error if it is going to cause harm to the persons soul. If any on sees a brother sinning, then what? If he listens then what? If he doesn’t then what? Etc.

Ask yourself; looking at your posts to me; have you judged the intentions of my heart and in essence by your own words condemned me?

We all will and have done this same thing; I stand guilty before God in this regard, but not in these posts.

 

[MacDaddy]

My questions for MacDaddy:

1. You know Catholics worship God alone and the saints and Mary don’t receive the same (as seen in the distinctions you’ve referenced), then why say that dulia and hyperdulia are the same thing?
2. God can read the hearts of men. Do you presume to know Catholics hearts when they ask for Mary’s intercession?

1. I know what the link I provided read and it states worship, then defines degrees of worship as latria as the highest and reserved for God, then dulia which is to venerate and honor the saints statutes and relics and then hyperdulia, reserved for Mary.

Hyperdulia has no historical use because it was invented to distinguish the worship of Mary form that of the saints and that reserved for God. In other words, its origin is from the Catholic teaching. The other distinction that is made is the dulia and hyperdulia is not separated from the latria, I guess the best way to put it is that dulia and hyperdulia are dependent on latria as it final object of worship, whereas latria is not dependent on dulia or hyperdulia. But is all defined as worship, then from a historical context, latria and dulia was never distinguished and was used synonymously as worship. That small aspect is and has been debated among theologians for centuries.

1. No, I just pointed out what you church actually and really teaches. I understand the nuances or differences from your perspective. I also can discern what the Bible says on the topic and the pattern that Jesus set for all of us and when asked by the Apostles how we are to pray, He gave them the model to follow, which is known as the Lord’s prayer.

I hope that clarifies things for you as well as others.

 

[MacDaddy]

It is not blasphemous. If anything is blasphemous it is your implication that the blessed mother of Jesus should not be honored. As Jesus is God, Mary is the mother of God. She is not divine - she is not worshipped. Worship is reserved only for God. If one worships another than God, that person is not following the First Commandment.

Jesus loved and loves His mother. He followed the Ten Commandments as every good Jewish person did. The fourth Commandment tells us to honor our father and our mother. Jesus honored His mother.

We should be as Christ-like as we can be. We follow the example of Christ and honor His mother. As Jesus made Mary our mother when He was on the cross, we honor her as both Jesus’ mother and our mother.

Mary is not God. She never claimed to be. Yet she asked her Son, Jesus, to perform His first miracle and He did so in honor of her. Mary should always be treated as her Son treated her, with love, respect, and honor.

To not honor Mary, Jesus’ mother, shows a blatant lack of respect for the most holy person that ever lived. Mary never sinned which is only proper as she carried God incarnate and gave birth to Him.

If you want to show respect to Christ, you must do as He did - honor His mother. If you refuse to show love to one Jesus loves so much, you are turning your back on Jesus Himself.

You took one part of the entire post and turned it into an argument that is not there. If you have read all the posts, you will know I have great respect for Mary and see the Magnificat as a model for true Christian worship of God. It is the “M” in Mother that bothers me, it indicates a title, not a position as an earthly mother who gave birth to Jesus, the God-man.

 

[MacDaddy]

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. What do you want me to do, ask you if you are a:

Jehovah Witness
Mormon
Methodist
Lutheran
Anglican
Baptist
Presbyterian
Seventh Day Adventist
Buddhist
Muslim
Hindu
or a member of one of the other many churches??

Just seemed odd to ask if I thought Jesus was God? He is.

 

[MarysGirls]

Oh goodness! Y’all have been busy while I was gone!

Secondly, what was the context of my discussion above? The poster said that praying to Mary was not worship, which is contrary to the teaching of her own Church, which I provided the link to show the poster. The question of being a good Catholic is a distinction and contrast you will find throughout CAF. I don’t define nor could I, I am not Catholic. I was not questioning if she was; I was asking in light of the contradiction post she made in light of the Catholic teaching. Was this judging or criticizing the posters intentions or just pointing out what her Church actually teaches?

The irony to all of this is that people are judging or criticizing on superficial basis. We are called to discern truth from error and confront that error if it is going to cause harm to the persons soul. If any on sees a brother sinning, then what? If he listens then what? If he doesn’t then what? Etc.

Ask yourself; looking at your posts to me; have you judged the intentions of my heart and in essence by your own words condemned me?

We all will and have done this same thing; I stand guilty before God in this regard, but not in these posts.

In answer to your previous question, MacDaddy, no. I am not an obedient Catholic. I am a liar, a cheat, a thief, an adulteress, and, yes, even a murderer. I am disrespectful, I have an awful temper, I am arrogant and prideful, and I have an awful tendency to open my mouth when I don’t know what I’m talking about.
But, by GOD’s grace, I am trying my upmost to change and am blessed with people who have the patience to stand me.
In truth I was offended when I first read your question, but I am no longer and I offer you my sincerest apologies. I had not read that article, but now that I have I can say that at least my original meaning was accurate, even if my words were not. As for your answers to my previous posts, I believe Mr. Carson has done a pretty good job answering for me and for that I thank him.

Pax! :tiphat:
Nicole

 

[MarysGirls]

I just stumbled across this and thought some of y’all might be interested.

‘And he said, “No; but as commander of the army of the LORD I have now come.” And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and worshipped, and said to him, “What does my lord bid his servant?”’ - Joshua 5:14

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that Joshua just started worshiping an angel. Of course, him being Joshua, I would assume that he is worshiping in much the same way that we Catholics worship the saints, not the worship and glory reserved for GOD alone.

What do y’all think???

 

[wisdomseeker]

The words of Jesus are recorded in the Bible so I don’t see the issue here. The men Jesus summoned taught as Jesus wanted them to, and the wonderful thing is that a record has been kept in scripture that is useful today and always.

Possibly, but that wasn’t in God’s plan. Instead, what we have today in scripture is as God has inspired it and it will never be destroyed.

Yes, but it may not be a human teacher, though God does use men to preach and teach the word. The ultimate teacher is the Holy Spirit. Jesus didn’t leave us to flounder on our own. In John14:26 He promised “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” That Holy Spirit is alive today in all of us who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and we can call on Him to help us in studying His word and coming to the knowledge of the truth. I get thoroughly excited over the written word of God and how it penetrates the heart and how is comes alive!

Hebrews 4:12&13 “For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.”

Ha ha ha…
you are funny. all these promises were not made to you or to people who read the Bible. these promises were made to the Apostles and to those whom the Apostles appointed as their successors. you are really funny indeed. the Word of God was not recorded so people could read it and claim it. do you even know how the Bible was taking from the CC? perhaps when you find out you will realize that Sacred Scriptures was not really meant to be in your hands. Scriptures has no meaning to anyone outside the Church. hope you will get this some day.

i suggest to you to put the Bible down for a while and begin to beg our Lord to show you the Truth wherever that may be.

 

[Fair_Lady]

Dear Sister,

You are on target. Jesus was a Soloa Scriptura, He never quoted anything outside of His own Word and He never will.

De 8:3
"He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD.

Matt. 4 & Luke 4 But He answered and said, ***"It is written, ‘MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.’ " ***

I know of no other place, than the written record of Scripture where the mouth of the Word of God rests. I cannot find any proof that anything outside of Scripture is not in our Bible.

Any verse that mentions oral teachings are speaking in the tense that shows it already existed; therefore we can rightly conclude from Peter that the oral teachings are one in the same with the written record.
2Pe 3:15-16
“our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,as also in all {his} letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as {they do} also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.”

Hello Brother in Christ,
Thank you for popping in and sharing your insights…) Also to Christian B - thanks. This has gotten fa-a-a-a-r too busy for me to keep up with!!! I’m glad you two are here to take on some of the load! (And some of the heat)

 

[Cristian_B]

Ha ha ha…
you are funny. all these promises were not made to you or to people who read the Bible. these promises were made to the Apostles and to those whom the Apostles appointed as their successors. you are really funny indeed. the Word of God was not recorded so people could read it and claim it. do you even know how the Bible was taking from the CC? perhaps when you find out you will realize that Sacred Scriptures was not really meant to be in your hands. Scriptures has no meaning to anyone outside the Church. hope you will get this some day.

i suggest to you to put the Bible down for a while and begin to beg our Lord to show you the Truth wherever that may be.

If it were for the Catholic Church the Bible wouldn’t be public. It is because of the Protestants that the Bible is public. In the dark ages, the Catholic Church strictly forbid public reading of the Bible. But then, protestants came and tried (and succeeded) in making it public.

He gave His Word for the whole world. Whoever believed His Word became part of His Church. So the promise was for all the Church, not just the apostles. But only those that listened to His Word received Him (the Holy Spirit). The Holy Spirit is with and works through every member of the Church. Everyone who listens to God’s commandment is part of the Church.

All this is milk. If you can’t eat milk how are you going to eat solid food?

 

[davidv]

If it were for the Catholic Church the Bible wouldn’t be public. It is because of the Protestants that the Bible is public. In the dark ages, the Catholic Church strictly forbid public reading of the Bible. But then, protestants came and tried (and succeeded) in making it public.

He gave His Word for the whole world. Whoever believed His Word became part of His Church. So the promise was for all the Church, not just the apostles. But only those that listened to His Word received Him (the Holy Spirit). The Holy Spirit is with and works through every member of the Church. Everyone who listens to God’s commandment is part of the Church.

All this is milk. If you can’t eat milk how are you going to eat solid food?

The Church has never kept the Bible from anyone, publicly or privately. That you say she did is false and you should never repeat this lie.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

1. I know what the link I provided read and it states worship, then defines degrees of worship as latria as the highest and reserved for God, then dulia which is to venerate and honor the saints statutes and relics and then hyperdulia, reserved for Mary.

Hyperdulia has no historical use because it was invented to distinguish the worship of Mary form that of the saints and that reserved for God. In other words, its origin is from the Catholic teaching. The other distinction that is made is the dulia and hyperdulia is not separated from the latria, I guess the best way to put it is that dulia and hyperdulia are dependent on latria as it final object of worship, whereas latria is not dependent on dulia or hyperdulia. But is all defined as worship, then from a historical context, latria and dulia was never distinguished and was used synonymously as worship. That small aspect is and has been debated among theologians for centuries.

1. No, I just pointed out what you church actually and really teaches. I understand the nuances or differences from your perspective. I also can discern what the Bible says on the topic and the pattern that Jesus set for all of us and when asked by the Apostles how we are to pray, He gave them the model to follow, which is known as the Lord’s prayer.

I hope that clarifies things for you as well as others.

From my perspective, Catholic seeking Mary intercession via pray is idolatry is a moot point. Catholics don’t believe Mary is God or has any divine qualities. All the graces Mary has received are from God Himself and she remains a model for Christian living from her first fiat.

However, I think the differences here might be on what idolatry means to both Protestants and Catholics, perhaps due to the different numbering of the Ten Commandments. What does idolatry mean to you? Creation of an image? Adoration (latria) of a being? Adoration (latria) of an image? What?

Catholics also have the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as the highest form of worship, which can also lead to some differences about what prayer is. Does your church have any form of liturgical worship?

In short, I think that Catholics believe Mary is God or has divine qualities and that by Catholics seeking her intercession as idolatry is a moot point. To think otherwise, one would have to deny our Church’s teachings. However, if honor should be given to the saints and Mary can be debated, although for the Catholic this matter has already been dealt with.

What are your sources for the “historical context”? The Bible? ECFs? Another book?

Here are some articles: one about devotion to Mary and idolatry.