Are Marian dogmas wildly un biblical?

[PRmerger]

I’m wondering why you say that. The pastor where my son goes to school (a WELS Lutheran church) plainly said on many occasions that Luther’s view of Mary would look nothing like that of the Catholic church because of how Catholicism shows so much veneration and adoration of Mary.

Originally posted by** Martin Luther**
"Our prayer should include the Mother of God . . . What the Hail Mary says is that all glory should be given to God, using these words: “Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus Christ. Amen!” You see that these words are not concerned with prayer but purely with giving praise and honor . . . We can use the Hail Mary as a meditation in which we recite what grace God has given her. Second, we should add a wish that everyone may know and respect her " (Personal Prayer Book, 1522).

 

[PRmerger]

Because of the obvious contrast between the Mary of the Bible and the Mary of Catholic theology.

Ah. Because she’s not mentioned once past the book of Acts.

So my point stands as originally made. Who decided that one’s importance in Christianity is based on how many times someone is mentioned in the bible?

This is a man-made tradition you’ve succumbed to, morton, for you’ve not read that criterion on one page of Scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

But even being so, she is still not divinity so then why show reverence for her which is far and away beyond that of any of the other saints? Why is it necessary? Why not spend that time and energy on Jesus Christ the King of Kings and the Lord of lords?

This is curious. And ironic.

You are posting here on the CAFs–why not spend time and energy on Jesus Christ the King of Kings and Lord of lords?

The answer lies in the fact that if one is truly conformed to the will of Christ, each and everything you do–whether it’s posting on the CAFs, or talking to your child, or chatting with your neighbors, or praying to Mary–is for the glory of God.

 

[JonNC]

But even being so, she is still not divinity so then why show reverence for her which is far and away beyond that of any of the other saints? Why is it necessary? Why not spend that time and energy on Jesus Christ the King of Kings and the Lord of lords?

I think PR’s posts responds to your question here very well.

Jon

 

[mortonsam]

PRmerger:
And there’s nothing there that I disagree with. Honor and respect for Mary. But not bowing to statues of Our Mother of Guadeloupe and petitioning them for special favors or prophesy and surely not crowning large shrine statues of Mary with roses and laying gifts at her feet while bowing and praising her and calling her almighty and Holy Queen of Heaven and Reedemer of souls with Christ. Big gynormous difference between what Luther said and what has taken place on several occasions in the Catholic church.

 

[mortonsam]

Ah. Because she’s not mentioned once past the book of Acts.

So my point stands as originally made. Who decided that one’s importance in Christianity is based on how many times someone is mentioned in the bible?

This is a man-made tradition you’ve succumbed to, morton, for you’ve not read that criterion on one page of Scripture.

You can’t see the forest here for the trees and it’s so sad that your motives here are more important than seeing things through the eyes of reason and truth.

You know very well that I have shown over and over again that there is no corelation in Catholic theology in how saints for the most part and Mary are recognized as it exists in Scripture. This is the whole underlying reason why I made the mention of Mary not being mentioned beyond the Acts of the Apostles. You on the other hand have an agenda to undercut me and shoot me down with every word I say here. Truth has no matter to you especially in this topic and it has been well proven. This is really sad.

 

[PRmerger]

And there’s nothing there that I disagree with. Honor and respect for Mary.

Yes. You will call her Blessed for all generations!

But not bowing to statues of Our Mother of Guadeloupe

Bowing is not worship, morton. The command is against worshiping statues.

and petitioning them for special favors or prophesy

Eek! The CC has condemned seeking statues’ prophesies.

and surely not crowning large shrine statues of Mary with roses

Where does the Bible condemn this?

and laying gifts at her feet

What gifts are laid at a statue of Mary’s feet?

while bowing and praising her and calling her almighty

I am not familiar with the nomenclature of Almighty Mary. Do you have a reference?

and Holy Queen of Heaven

Yes, she is the Queen Mother. Just like in the OT the Queen Mother was given a position of pre-eminence.

and Reedemer of souls with Christ.

CO-redeemer. For you would not have Christ without Mary.

Big gynormous difference between what Luther said and what has taken place on several occasions in the Catholic church.

How so?

 

[mortonsam]

I think PR’s posts responds to your question here very well.

Jon

I’m not quite sure how it is you can agree with the views and practices regarding Mary that have been expressed here as they are viewed in the Lutheran churches that I am familiar with. What Lutheran church do you belong to?

 

[JonNC]

But even being so, she is still not divinity so then why show reverence for her which is far and away beyond that of any of the other saints? Why is it necessary? Why not spend that time and energy on Jesus Christ the King of Kings and the Lord of lords?

Beyond invocation, the biggest difference between what Luther thought and the current Catholic mariology is that Luther believed these beliefs (IC, Assumption, sempre virgo) were adiaphora, and not articles of faith. And if, in fact, they are adiaphora, then I, as a Lutheran, cannot condemn those who believe them or those who do not.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

You know very well that I have shown over and over again that there is no corelation in Catholic theology in how saints for the most part and Mary are recognized as it exists in Scripture.

Fair enough. Just for the sake of this discussion I’ll concede that our prayers to Mary and the saints are not mentioned in the Bible.

2 points:
-there is nothing in our prayers/veneration that contradicts Scripture
-I am going to venture a guess that the worship service you have, the practices you and your pastor observe have the same degree of separation from Scripture that our veneration to Mary does.

For where in the Bible is going to church on Sunday? Having altar calls? Wed evening bible studies? Bowing your head when your pastor says, “Let us pray”? Outdoor weddings? Crosses displayed in the sanctuary? Crosses on the church steeple?

This objection to Catholic practices is, again, highly ironic, given the practices performed by many non-Catholics.

You on the other hand have an agenda to undercut me and shoot me down with every word I say here. Truth has no matter to you especially in this topic and it has been well proven. This is really sad.

To shoot you down, no. To refute you, yes.

haha! I refute. Not shoot.

 

[JonNC]

I’m not quite sure how it is you can agree with the views and practices regarding Mary that have been expressed here as they are viewed in the Lutheran churches that I am familiar with. What Lutheran church do you belong to?

Luther himself expressed a general agreement most Catholic mariology. The Lutheran Confessions refer to her as “Ever-Virgin”, and supports the designation of Holy Theotokos.
I can agree with the views, though I may be uncomfortable with some of the practices, precisely because I am Lutheran. But whether or not I agree with them, I do not consider them idolatry, as you have implied by claiming an elevation to “near-divinity”.

EDIT: Oh, I forgot to mention that I agreed with PR, in part, because of the quoting of Luther.

Jon

 

[GaryTaylor]

REMEMBER TRADITION VERSUS Sola/Solo Scripture DRIVES OPINION

At the time of the Reformation the original grievances against the church were very focused and few … mostly about Martin Luther’s challenges. Calvin and others with the anaBaptists being the most radical, drove the wedge much, much further. They HAD to don’t you see. In order for them to truly separate from all the Church connections, they HAD to terminate the belief in Tradition…even though it was tradition that was passed down by their forefathers.

So, therefore, any of the Church’s teachings that are significantly based on tradition, word of mouth or actual practices, must be mostly ignored by the reformists. This position especially applies to Marian doctrine.

If one cannot get over the fact that tradition and the bible comprise the entire history and dogma of Christianity…then all this debate is irrelevant.

I am not even positing a position here, for or against. Simply recognizing the gap, very wide indeed, in communication when one begins without the acceptance of both verbal, actual tradition along with biblical scriptural documentation as what comprises our faith.

Otherwise, the debaters here are always dealing with “half a deck” as we say

Here’s another point of view relevant to this post, the Catholic Church and Mary.

While Luther and Calvin are so freely bought up with no critical view, why then with the same brush stroke the Catholic Saints be just of relevant? And here their significance in not how they died, but how they lived and exactly what they had to say. Is not their lives just as relevant in their contribution to Church and there views on the Blessed Mother then?

Not only that, but lets even go a step ahead here. How about a Saint like Ignatius of Loyola? Is not his contribution relevant to the Society of Jesus? Another Saint from the 1500’s, and Jesuits pay reverence to him to this day as founder. And the Jesuits not relevant to Christology?

Why should it be that Calvin and Luther have any attention attributed to them, if not the contribution of the Saints? Should we not take into consideration what St Augustine has to say about the Blessed Mother? Why not Maximillian Kolbe, Terese of Avila, Catherine of Sienna, Padre Pio, Saint Faustina? And on and on, you don’t even want to hear about St Louis de Montfort I clearly understand that.

The point is, while we don’t ignore the contributions of Luther, nor do we ignore the contributions of the Saints. Their lifes prove the path of Christ and the Word of the Bible. All are living testimony to the Truth of Gods Kingdom.

Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God didn’t end with the last page of the Bible. Its never ending just as the Bible states. And Gods KIngdom is bought forword daily by all who follow the path and Word of Christ/God. JUst as the goal on this Earth is World Peace and that goal is not complete, nor is Gods Kingdom.

And of course some are more relevant than others, thats a fools argument. Is not the Mother of God important? Can we ever know how God truly thinks of Mary? I think not, and here we are left with the Saints and Seers and Prophets of God who came forward from that time. It wouldn’t matter what denomination of Christology they came from. Fact is they are relevant and God sent them. Just as he has since Genesis and just as he will till Christs Second coming.

 

[KathleenGee]

Christmas was St. Francis’ favorite feast day.

On Christmas Eve night, he invited the townspeople to come pay homage to the Infant. When they arrived, they came to a stable…and there in the manger lay a statue of Baby Jesus. Francis picked up the statue and treated it as if it was a real person…the statue represented Jesus, the center of their faith…he picked up the statue, it wrapped in swaddling clothes, and carried it out for the people to venerate…

Do you think the people were guilty of idolizing a piece of ceramic…or was the ceramic simply being used as a another sacramental form to express their love for Christ?

You can’t judge people by appearances.

So such devotion and veneration has been extended to Christ as well…the Stations of the Cross, the veneration of the Holy Cross on Good Friday, the blessing of the Paschal Candle representing Jesus Christ on Holy Saturday that is then leading the procession of the faithful and newly elected for the sacraments into the main church.

I am a creative person and to think that the only way I can worship by reciting only bible psalms is very stifling…like there is nothing new we can do to express our new found faith in Christ…Christ is liberating us and allowing us infinite forms in which to praise Him and give due honor to His mother and the saints. This is the small eccelesial traditions of the Church…some are lasting, others pass away.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Luther himself expressed a general agreement most Catholic mariology. The Lutheran Confessions refer to her as “Ever-Virgin”, and supports the designation of Holy Theotokos.
I can agree with the views, though I may be uncomfortable with some of the practices, precisely because I am Lutheran. But whether or not I agree with them, I do not consider them idolatry, as you have implied by claiming an elevation to “near-divinity”.

EDIT: Oh, I forgot to mention that I agreed with PR, in part, because of the quoting of Luther.

Jon

And I agree all around here. I can understand Jon how one would jump on the idolatry band wagon from the jump. No mystery, I get that. But how one holds that point of view after actual investigation? It just doesn’t hold water. Though I have been in older Catholic Churchs where one may get an uncomfortable feeling, though honestly those older churchs are the ones I prefer to be in. I may be losing my mind, but those are the very Catholic Churchs I feel God in… lol.

GT

 

[moondweller]

Yes, she is the Queen Mother. Just like in the OT the Queen Mother was given a position of pre-eminence.

That’s what men call her but they have nothing to support it. David never elevated his mother to a throne, and Solomon was never given any divine instruction to do so. IOW, it was a man-made position. Sound familiar?

CO-redeemer. For you would not have Christ without Mary.

Then with this line of logic you should certainly have no problem calling Jesus a CO-redeemer with Mary. Based on your logic she must be preeminent of the two since, as you reason, without “her” there’s no “Him.” But by your convoluted logic the real truth escapes you in that without Him there would never be a her (Jn. 1:3).

There’s no “Co-” anything between them. The work of Divine redemption (as well as the work of reconciliation and propitiation) did not begin until the cross. In fact, it (they) began and ended on the cross. Mary had absolutely nothing to do with any of it. It was His work and His ALONE. There was no “co-redeeming” going on at that time, whatsoever. Nor do the Apostles ever connect Mary with the words “Redeemer” or “redemption” in the theopneustos Epistles.

All Mary could do when that work of Christ was being carried out on the cross was watch. And only after the fact would she then learn the truth about what had been Divinely accomplished there by Christ alone (Eph. 3:4-5).

 

[BryanM27]

So while Christ was alive none needed an intermediary, but now that He has risen, the rules have changed?

Good question, and here’s the best I can give you:
When Christ was on earth people often could not get to Him without help from others in the crowds or from the apostles. Sometimes they could, but how often in the Gospels is He teaching only one person and is not surrounded by His apostles?

We don’t NEED an intermediary to go to Christ. But we SHOULD use one. Using an intermediary to go to Christ shows an extra level of humility. We recognize that we are not worthy of being in His presence, that our sins stain even the best of our works. But by offering these works to Mary, who in her great love does not ever refuse us but rather welcomes us as her children, our sins are removed for our works. When they are presented to Christ, He will recognize us faintly amidst the adornements of His mother just as Isaac faintly recognized Jacob after Rebecca had adorned him with Esau’s clothing and the wool from the lambs.

Does that make sense Mike?

 

[BryanM27]

But even being so, she is still not divinity so then why show reverence for her which is far and away beyond that of any of the other saints? Why is it necessary? Why not spend that time and energy on Jesus Christ the King of Kings and the Lord of lords?

In this instance I think you misunderstand the vast majority of Catholics who “worship” Mary. There are some who perhaps take it too far, but the majority go to Mary and ask for her to take our prayers to the King of Kings. Speaking of which, you never answered my posts regarding approaching the King of Kings without an intermediary. Would you approach an earthly King without one? If not, why is it okay to do so with the King of Kings?

As to “elevating” her beyond the other Saints, she deserves that honor as the mother of God. God, as I pointed out in a previous post, could have chosen to enter the world as a 33-year-old man and begin his ministry right away. Instead He chose to enter through a “natural” birth and make Himself totally dependent on Mary. He was never totally dependent on anyone else.

Because of the obvious contrast between the Mary of the Bible and the Mary of Catholic theology.

I’m sorry, can you show us this difference?

You can’t see the forest here for the trees and it’s so sad that your motives here are more important than seeing things through the eyes of reason and truth.

This is the second time I have pointed out the logic in this thread. Please respond to it before you start accusing others of not being able to see.

 

[mortonsam]

In this instance I think you misunderstand the vast majority of Catholics who “worship” Mary. There are some who perhaps take it too far, but the majority go to Mary and ask for her to take our prayers to the King of Kings. Speaking of which, you never answered my posts regarding approaching the King of Kings without an intermediary. Would you approach an earthly King without one? If not, why is it okay to do so with the King of Kings?

As to “elevating” her beyond the other Saints, she deserves that honor as the mother of God. God, as I pointed out in a previous post, could have chosen to enter the world as a 33-year-old man and begin his ministry right away. Instead He chose to enter through a “natural” birth and make Himself totally dependent on Mary. He was never totally dependent on anyone else.

You must have not been paying attention when I repeated my points three different times. It isn’t about not pointing them out, it is about not wanting to listen to what is being pointed out.

 

[mortonsam]

QUOTE=BryanM27;7334088]In this instance I think you misunderstand the vast majority of Catholics who “worship” Mary. There are some who perhaps take it too far, but the majority go to Mary and ask for her to take our prayers to the King of Kings. Speaking of which, you never answered my posts regarding approaching the King of Kings without an intermediary. Would you approach an earthly King without one? If not, why is it okay to do so with the King of Kings?

I don’t think so. Where do you come up with the idea that you need someone to talk to Jesus? Where does that come from except through Catholisicm?? I can understand asking the saints to pray WITH us as we ask others to pray for us, but this in no way should signify that our prayers are dependent upon being amplified. Scripture tells us that God hears us when we pray. It is shown again and again throughout the OT.

 

[mortonsam]

Fair enough. Just for the sake of this discussion I’ll concede that our prayers to Mary and the saints are not mentioned in the Bible.

2 points:
-there is nothing in our prayers/veneration that contradicts Scripture

-I am going to venture a guess that the worship service you have, the practices you and your pastor observe have the same degree of separation from Scripture that our veneration to Mary does.

Refute away, that’s okay because Ii have Scripture on my side.