The Importance of Mary in Catholicism

[Cat_Herder]

This sort of prayer seems to resemble the very kinds of prayers, popular in Jesus’ day, that he nevertheless condemns as vain repetition.

1. If it be objected that it is repetitious but not “vain,” I would reply that it’s the repeated recital of words that is precisely what causes it to be vain.

[BIBLEDRB]Psalm 135[/BIBLEDRB]

This is probably Psalm 136 in your Bible. See for yourself.

 

[StTommyMore]

[BIBLEDRB]Psalm 135[/BIBLEDRB]

This is probably Psalm 136 in your Bible. See for yourself.

This is why I usually use the RSV-CE2 for apologetics…to resolve the verse numbering issues in the OT. That and protestants tend to go ballistic at the Douay-Rheims rendering of the Our Father.

 

[moondweller]

I just learned quite a bit from you all, Pax and Tantum ergo. Those proofs make a WHOLE lot of sense.

Moondweller,
I will engage in debate on your level. Where in Scripture does it say that Elizabeth’s son leapt in her womb only because of the Child? Clearly, Scripture does NOT indicate your idea. In fact, it indicates our view of it.

And what is your view of it?

 

[Cat_Herder]

This is why I usually use the RSV-CE2 for apologetics…to resolve the verse numbering issues in the OT. That and protestants tend to go ballistic at the Douay-Rheims rendering of the Our Father.

That’s my favorite translation as well, but for copyright reasons only the DRB/LVB are supported as tags here. The DRB renders the two versions of the Our Father like so:

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 6:9-13[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Luke 11:2-4[/BIBLEDRB]

The word “daily” or “supersubstantial” is ἐπιούσιος / επιουϲιον (epiousios / epiousion) in the original Greek. (See for yourself in the Codex Sinaiticus-Matthew and Luke). and literally means epi- (“over, super”) and ousion (“essence”). Hence it can be translated figuratively as “the bread we need each day” → “daily” OR literally as “supersubstantial.” The literal translation has been lost to Protestantism.

 

[StTommyMore]

That’s my favorite translation as well, but for copyright reasons only the DRB/LVB are supported as tags here. The DRB renders the two versions of the Our Father like so:

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 6:9-13[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Luke 11:2-4[/BIBLEDRB]

The word “daily” or “supersubstantial” is ἐπιούσιος / επιουϲιον (epiousios / epiousion) in the original Greek. (See for yourself in the Codex Sinaiticus-Matthew and Luke). and literally means epi- (“over, super”) and ousion (“essence”). Hence it can be translated figuratively as “the bread we need each day” → “daily” OR literally as “supersubstantial.” The literal translation has been lost to Protestantism.

I copy and paste texts out of the Faith Database, which is at least the RSV. Pope Benedict writes a good discussion on the “supersubstantial” aspect of, and therefore Eucharistic reference, in the Our Father in Jesus of Nazareth. Now that that side issue is compete, we now return you to your regularly scheduled thread

 

[Philthy]

Same with salvation. God forces salvation on no one. They “believe” the good news preached to them regarding Christ, His sacrificial work and bodily resurrection, and “by grace,” “through faith,” salvation is gifted to them by God (Eph. 2:8-9). And He truly does SAVE them. He doesn’t “potentially” save them (which is no salvation at all).

Be careful MD! Catholics don’t believe anyone is ever “potentially” saved - that is simply your mischaracterization of our faith. We believe that either you are saved or you are not. What you are confusing - again - is the difference between being “saved” and “inheriting the Kingdom of God”(ie Heaven). I don’t think that you really want to revisit those issues again based upon your abrupt and unexpected departure from the thread “Re: faith alone or not?”,
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7265867&postcount=966
where your unbiblical stances on OSAS got soundly refuted from Romans, 1 Cor, Gal 5 and Ephesians 5. Your cryptic “potentially saved” refers to your belief that there is no such thing that can cause one who has “believed” to lose salvation and not end up in Heaven when they die. Since Catholics do, you imply that they don’t recognize whether someone can be actually “saved”, only “potentially”. Complete hogwash on your part. There are mortal sins which, if unrepented of, can cause one to be “separated from Christ”, to “fall from grace” and to have “no inheritance in the kingdom of God”. This is clear from Paul’s, Johns and James’ letters and much more…

Blessings!

 

[Philthy]

She was obedient

Luke 1:38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
.
Eve and Adam believed and were disobedient. Gen 3

You are correct, of course, but obedience doesnt mean anything to those who subscribe to faith alone. They will deny it of course, but it has no practical salvific significance.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

And what is your view of it?

To avoid being redundant, just see Pax’s explanation in post #536. Luke 1:41-44 were the verses that Pax explained quite well.

 

[paul_c]

Moondweller,
You do reallize that this is the entire Hail Mary, as said by Catholics:

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you. Blessed are you among woman and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death, AMEN.

Note, we use the salutations from Gabriel and Elizabeth and then request that Mary PRAY for us. You see, we are asking for her to intercede on our behalf…

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Moondweller,
You do reallize that this is the entire Hail Mary, as said by Catholics:

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you. Blessed are you among woman and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death, AMEN.

Note, we use the salutations from Gabriel and Elizabeth and then request that Mary PRAY for us. You see, we are asking for her to intercede on our behalf…

Paul, MD still can’t wrap his head around the idea that prayer is not TO GOD ALONE. As far as he’s concerned, the fact that we are even trying to ‘speak’ to Mary and thus ‘pray’ to her is 'taking away from God."

Of course, if you or I walked over to MD and said, “MD, my man, would you mind asking your pastor and friends to say a prayer for me to God”, he’d say sure.

Thing is, we are (in the proper sense) ‘praying to MD’ by ASKING HIM to ASK OTHERS to pray for US. And when he asks his friends to say a prayer, he is praying to THEM too.

Just as the Hail Mary does.

But this would confuse him because of the preconceptions that have been instilled in him. It’s much easier to stick to the formula:

“Catholics worship Mary, Catholics bad” and not try to use those pesky tools of logic and reason and considering what Catholics are actually teaching!

 

[paul_c]

Paul, MD still can’t wrap his head around the idea that prayer is not TO GOD ALONE. As far as he’s concerned, the fact that we are even trying to ‘speak’ to Mary and thus ‘pray’ to her is 'taking away from God."

Of course, if you or I walked over to MD and said, “MD, my man, would you mind asking your pastor and friends to say a prayer for me to God”, he’d say sure.

Thing is, we are (in the proper sense) ‘praying to MD’ by ASKING HIM to ASK OTHERS to pray for US. And when he asks his friends to say a prayer, he is praying to THEM too.

Just as the Hail Mary does.

But this would confuse him because of the preconceptions that have been instilled in him. It’s much easier to stick to the formula:

“Catholics worship Mary, Catholics bad” and not try to use those pesky tools of logic and reason and considering what Catholics are actually teaching!

I’m not worried particularly if MD can get his head around it or not. In my view, my role is to accurately teach him Catholic doctrine and practice. Whether he accepts it or not is up to him. and maybe, just maybe, some other non-Catholic will read that prayer and understand.

 

[zz912]

I’ll bite.

1. The prayer is directed to a creature. Is there an example of anyone in the entire history of the Bible ever praying to a creature? Since prayer is a form of worship, then wouldn’t the very act of praying to a creature constitute worship of that creature?

If we can’t do that with angels, how is it permissible to do that with Mary?

Take a look at Genesis 18:2. Abraham bows down to three angels, and they do not stop him because he is not worshipping them, but only giving respect. The intent is the key.

 

[panevino]

Take a look at Genesis 18:2. Abraham bows down to three angels, and they do not stop him because he is not worshipping them, but only giving respect. The intent is the key.

also see Lot in Gen 19

1And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; 2And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant’s house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. 3And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.

 

[kepha1]

I’ll bite.

1. Two texts of scripture are being taken out of their literary context (which has nothing to do with prayer) and joined together in another context to form a “prayer” to be recited. This sort of prayer seems to resemble the very kinds of prayers, popular in Jesus’ day, that he nevertheless condemns as vain repetition.

Is there something wrong with praying scripture? How about “Praise the Lord”. Is that scripture and a prayer? Funny thing. I spent a lot of time in and out of all sorts of Protestant churches and I could hear “Praise the Lord” 50 times a minute. Is that vain repetition too? Jesus condemns vanity, not repetition.

1. If it be objected that it is repetitious but not “vain,” I would reply that it’s the repeated recital of words that is precisely what causes it to be vain. It seems to me that Jesus wanted us to “pray prayers,” not “say prayers”.

Ps.136
1] O give thanks to the LORD, for he is good,
for his steadfast love endures for ever.
2] O give thanks to the God of gods,
for his steadfast love endures for ever.
3] O give thanks to the Lord of lords,
for his steadfast love endures for ever;
4] to him who alone does great wonders,
for his steadfast love endures for ever;
5] to him who by understanding made the heavens,
for his steadfast love endures for ever;
6] to him who spread out the earth upon the waters,
for his steadfast love endures for ever;
7] to him who made the great lights,
for his steadfast love endures for ever;
8] the sun to rule over the day,
for his steadfast love endures for ever;
9] the moon and stars to rule over the night,
for his steadfast love endures for ever;
10] to him who smote the first-born of Egypt,
for his steadfast love endures for ever;
11] and brought Israel out from among them,
for his steadfast love endures for ever;
12] with a strong hand and an outstretched arm,
for his steadfast love endures for ever;
13] to him who divided the Red Sea in sunder,
for his steadfast love endures for ever;
14] and made Israel pass through the midst of it,
for his steadfast love endures for ever;
15] but overthrew Pharaoh and his host in the Red Sea,
for his steadfast love endures for ever;
16] to him who led his people through the wilderness,
for his steadfast love endures for ever;
17] to him who smote great kings,
for his steadfast love endures for ever;
18] and slew famous kings,
for his steadfast love endures for ever;
19] Sihon, king of the Amorites,
for his steadfast love endures for ever;
20] and Og, king of Bashan,
for his steadfast love endures for ever;
21] and gave their land as a heritage,
for his steadfast love endures for ever;
22] a heritage to Israel his servant,
for his steadfast love endures for ever.
23] It is he who remembered us in our low estate,
for his steadfast love endures for ever;
24] and rescued us from our foes,
for his steadfast love endures for ever;
25] he who gives food to all flesh,
for his steadfast love endures for ever.
26] O give thanks to the God of heaven,
for his steadfast love endures for ever.

Miguel, if a person were to stand on the street corner praying or reciting this Psalm for the purpose of impressing people, then yes, it would be vain repetition. If a person is going to recite verses from the Bible in the form of prayer at home or in church, there is no desire for recognition, no vanity. No one goes early to Mass to recite the rosary with a group of people to make an impression. Maybe you need to witness a group reciting the rosary and see for yourself there is no vanity. I would expect this canard coming from a paranoid Jack Chick fundamentalist than from you. You really disappoint me.

 

[kepha1]

It seems you missed the earlier post made by Catherder on Psalm 136.

1. The prayer is directed to a creature. Is there an example of anyone in the entire history of the Bible ever praying to a creature? Since prayer is a form of worship, then wouldn’t the very act of praying to a creature constitute worship of that creature?

No. Changing the meaning of a word is dishonest. Prayer does not mean worship.

*The word “worship” has undergone a change in meaning in English. It comes from the Old English weorthscipe, which means the condition of being worthy of honor, respect, or dignity. To worship in the older, larger sense is to ascribe honor, worth, or excellence to someone, whether a sage, a magistrate, or God.

For many centuries, the term worship simply meant showing respect or honor, and an example of this usage survives in contemporary English. British subjects refer to their magistrates as “Your Worship,” although Americans would say “Your Honor.” This doesn’t mean that British subjects worship their magistrates as gods (in fact, they may even despise a particular magistrate they are addressing). It means they are giving them the honor appropriate to their office, not the honor appropriate to God.

Outside of this example, however, the English term “worship” has been narrowed in scope to indicate only that supreme form of honor, reverence, and respect that is due to God. This change in usage is quite recent. In fact, one can still find books that use “worship” in the older, broader sense. This can lead to a significant degree of confusion, when people who are familiar only with the use of words in their own day and their own circles encounter material written in other times and other places.

In Scripture, the term “worship” was similarly broad in meaning, but in the early Christian centuries, theologians began to differentiate between different types of honor in order to make more clear which is due to God and which is not.
*more here.

1. "I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed me these things. But he said to me, ‘Do not do that. I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book. Worship God’” (Revelation 22:8-9).

If we can’t do that with angels, how is it permissible to do that with Mary?

It is not permissible, it is not done. We give the saints their due honor. (dulia) Honor does not mean worship. We give Mary a special honor. (hyperdulia). Why?
Because God did it first.

What is the most significant event of all creation found in scripture? The moment of the Incarnation. And where is that found? It is explicit when two human beings meet and God is in one of their wombs. God further unfolds his covenant he made in Gen. 3:15. It’s a big deal. The “Hail Mary” prayer reminds us that God is not that far away, and we are the offspring of the woman in Rev. 12:17, and that one day we will die. Do you pray about the hour of your death, Miguel?