Why Mary is Queen in the New Testament

[JohnR77]

Jesus gave Mary to John.

I can see that you are much difficulty is seeing what the Bible really teaches about Mary. For these things you will need more than just your intellect. You will need God’s grace and His love. Please consider asking God in devout prayer that He help you to LOVE Mary as much as He wants you to. God is love. And Love opens many doors.

Presently, if you look open mindedly, there are many things that just don’t add up.

When you receive the fullness of what God offers in Catholic teaching all these things fit together so beautifully.

For example,
Where was Jesus at when Mary Magdalen first came to the tomb and what was He doing ?
Note. He has risen body somewhere.

See
defendingthebride.com/pp/tomb/

John 19:26-27
“When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” 27 Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.”

If the “beloved disciple” was not meant to represent all of us, then why does Jesus wait till He is dying to tidy up loose ends about who is going to take care of Mary?
Note: Hanging on the cross causes death by suffocation. One must painfully push up with ones legs just to take a breath. That is why the legs of the others were broken to cause them to die. Jesus knew He was going to be put to death. Jesus last seven words have profound meaning because of the circumstance.

Did you know that the mother/child obsession is common to many very ancient cults, including the Babylonian system? Common to them, foreign to Scripture. Very telling!

This was already answered at

defendingthebride.com/ma3/only21.html

The charge of cannibalism was leveled against the church long before the Roman Catholic Church evolved.

The Catholic Church goes all the way back to Matthew 16:18.

See
newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

defendingthebride.com/ch/pa/papacylink.html

.

 

[Bodyandblood999]

The Bible does support the Saints in heaven interceding for us based on the ONE Mediator-ship of Christ.

defendingthebride.com/ma3/only9.html

defendingthebride.com/ma3/only.html

catholic.com/tracts/praying-to-the-saints

Friend, no one doubts that we pray for each other! I pray for my brothers and sisters in Christ every day. And I am frequently asked to pray for them. Do you not think that is different than people spending countless hours praying TO Mary, and even mindlessly repeating preset prayers over and over, rather than fellowshipping with Jesus himself and praying directly to him? Also, when you pray to Mary, you do it because you think she can accomplish something you can’t, and that is…well…I will hold my tongue and just say it slaps right against what Jesus said when He said, “If you ask ANYTHING in MY NAME, I will do it!” So what more power could He offer you, if you are saved, and why in the world would He not have said, “But if you want to pray a super duper prayer, forget praying directly to me, ask my mom to talk to me, because her prayers are much more effective.” He never ONCE mentions his mother regarding prayer, and there are many other invitations to pray! Do you not see your error here?

 

[JohnR77]

and why in the world would He not have said, “But if you want to pray a super duper prayer, forget praying directly to me, ask my mom to talk to me, because her prayers are much more effective.” He never ONCE mentions his mother regarding prayer, and there are many other invitations to pray! Do you not see your error here?

Dear Friend,
Thanks for your questions. They do help me to see my errors. I have failed miserably in correctly explaining what Catholic prayer to Mary is all about. Please accept my apologies. By the way, Happy World Day of Prayer.

Friend, no one doubts that we pray for each other! I pray for my brothers and sisters in Christ every day. And I am frequently asked to pray for them. Do you not think that is different than people spending countless hours praying TO Mary, and even mindlessly repeating preset prayers over and over,

I noticed your capitalization of “TO”
For the Protestant who is accustomed to “ only praying to God” the words “prayer” and “Worship” can almost be synonymous. Not so for a Catholic.

We Catholics worship God and God alone – The Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.
When we speak of “praying” to the Saints it is important to understand the meaning of that word. The word “pray” does not mean to worship. It means to ask. This can be seen in King James Bible as well as more modern literature such as Shakespeare. The context shows that it just means to ask or beseech.

Genesis 13:8 “And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we be brethren.” KJV

Acts 8:34 “And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man ?” KJV

Likewise, when Catholics speak about praying to the Saints in Heaven they mean they are asking for the Saint’s help by praying with them to Jesus. They are no way intending to put the Saint, a creature who was saved by Jesus Christ, on equal par with God Almighty who Created the Universe from nothing.

We do not pray to Mary instead of God, but praying – as Catholics define the word – helps us pray more directly to God. The more we love our neighbor the more we are able to express love to God.

Rituals
I realize that you have little experience with them, and so you don’t understand their value. Catholics pray spontaneous prayers from the heart, but also see much value in ritual prayers.

Jesus prayed ritual prayers. Ritual prayers have a way of freeing the mind from everyday worldly concerns so that deeper needs can be brought to God as well as open the mind to hear God’s message.

I Suggest you consider the Divine Mercy chaplet.

“Jesus, for the sake of your sorrowful passion have mercy on us and on the whole world.”

defendingthebride.com/sc/mass/massr.html

, rather than fellowshipping with Jesus himself and praying directly to him?

Catholics do both.

Also see
Devotion to Mary leads us directly to her Son, Jesus

defendingthebride.com/direct/direct2.html

Also, when you pray to Mary, you do it because you think she can accomplish something you can’t, and that is…well…I will hold my tongue and just say it slaps right against what Jesus said when He said, “If you ask ANYTHING in MY NAME, I will do it!” So what more power could He offer you, if you are saved,

On a side note, Catholics more security in their salvation than any Protestant. Our faith is not in our faith, that our faith is true type of faith, but rather in the promise of Jesus to speak infallibly through His Church that He built on Peter.

Catholics always ask in His name when we make the sign of the cross when beginning our prayers. “Name” here means more than just speaking His name. His Name is His essence. He is Love, and perfectly ordered to the will of the Father.
See more at

defendingthebride.com/ss/lastchr.html#love

Mary is holier, being perfected in heaven, so yes her prayers are more powerful.

James 5:16
“ … The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful.”
By rejecting the help Jesus wants to give you through Mary you are not praying in His Name as well as you would be if you honored and loved her.

He never ONCE mentions his mother regarding prayer, and there are many other invitations to pray! Do you not see your error here?

Never once does he offer you a list of which books are in the New Testament. Note that the words “The Gospel of Matthew his disciple” is not part of the book, and not part of the inspired text. You only know that it is Matthew’s Gospel because the Catholic Church says it is so.

You might benefit by listening to convert to Catholicism Rod Bennet. He points out that it is a mistake to reduce Peter n Paul to being characters in a play. They cannot be reduced to just the words we read in the Bible. Many of Jesus words were not recorded. Same goes for Peter and Paul.

Since prayer means to ask, why can you not ask Mary to Pray with you to Jesus ?
She is in heaven. Her will is perfectly conformed to God’s will. Our is not. We still sin sometimes. She is perfected by God’s grace.

Development of Christian Doctrine
catholicity.elcore.net/FromNewman%27sEssayOnDevelopment.html

 

[Bodyandblood999]

I can see that you are much difficulty is seeing what the Bible really teaches about Mary. For these things you will need more than just your intellect. You will need God’s grace and His love. Please consider asking God in devout prayer that He help you to LOVE Mary as much as He wants you to. God is love. And Love opens many doors.

Presently, if you look open mindedly, there are many things that just don’t add up.

When you receive the fullness of what God offers in Catholic teaching all these things fit together so beautifully.

For example,
Where was Jesus at when Mary Magdalen first came to the tomb and what was He doing ?
Note. He has risen body somewhere.

See
defendingthebride.com/pp/tomb/

John 19:26-27
“When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” 27 Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.”

If the “beloved disciple” was not meant to represent all of us, then why does Jesus wait till He is dying to tidy up loose ends about who is going to take care of Mary?
Note: Hanging on the cross causes death by suffocation. One must painfully push up with ones legs just to take a breath. That is why the legs of the others were broken to cause them to die. Jesus knew He was going to be put to death. Jesus last seven words have profound meaning because of the circumstance.

This was already answered at

defendingthebride.com/ma3/only21.html

The Catholic Church goes all the way back to Matthew 16:18.

See
newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

defendingthebride.com/ch/pa/papacylink.html

.

No, the issue of cults in history being obsessed with mother/child worship was not answered there at all, and it won’t seem to go away.

Also, Regarding your reference to Matthew 16:18, I wasn’t talking about the Holy Catholic (universal) Church composed of all born again people, I was talking about the Roman Catholic one. That creation came much later.

And it is common knowledge that Jesus was not referring to Peter, but to his confession. Jesus didn’t build his Church on Peter, but “on the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone.”(Eph 2:20)

 

[JohnR77]

No, the issue of cults in history being obsessed with mother/child worship was not answered there at all, and it won’t seem to go away.

As for Catholics, we only worship the Child Jesus, and the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Proof that Catholics clearly teach to worship only God and not to worship Mary. See

defendingthebride.com/ma3/only18.html

Also, Regarding your reference to Matthew 16:18, I wasn’t talking about the Holy Catholic (universal) Church composed of all born again people, I was talking about the Roman Catholic one. That creation came much later.

The Church built by Christ as stated in Matthew 16:18 was under the Apostolic Authority of the Apostles with Peter being the Chief Apostle among them. See

defendingthebride.com/ch/hand.html

And it is common knowledge that Jesus was not referring to Peter, but to his confession. Jesus didn’t build his Church on Peter, but “on the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone.”(Eph 2:20)

Matthew 16:13-19
“When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi …
He said to …Simon Peter … you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church …”

Actually Jesus Christ spoke in Aramaic. And He used the Aramaic word for rock which is “Kephas.” See John 1:42 below.

So, Jesus’ actual words were

“… you are Kephas, and upon this Kephas I will build my Church …” [The words not underlined are translated into English.]

In Paul’s letters he continued to use this Aramaic name for Peter. Cf. 1 Corinthians 15:5, etc.

John’s Gospel chapter 1 verse 42 informs us that Jesus really called Peter “Kephas” and that this name was later translated to “Peter,” or actually “Petros” in the Greek text of Matthew’s Gospel.

John 1:42
“Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, ‘You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Kephas’ (which is translated Petros).”

Now back to Mat. 16:18, Jesus does not say “Simon, your confession is rock.” Jesus said Simon is rock, “Kepha.” Besides, you cannot separate Peter from his faith or confession.

Yes, Jesus is the Rock, the Capstone. And it is Jesus working in Simon that now makes him a rock. Jesus is the head of the Church in Heaven. And the Apostles and prophets have Peter and his successor as Jesus vicar or representative here on earth. Eph. 2:20 works beautifully with Matt 6:18.

Please read more at

defendingthebride.com/ch/ca/rock1.html

.

 

[Bodyandblood999]

As for Catholics, we only worship the Child Jesus, and the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Proof that Catholics clearly teach to worship only God and not to worship Mary. See

defendingthebride.com/ma3/only18.html

The Church built by Christ as stated in Matthew 16:18 was under the Apostolic Authority of the Apostles with Peter being the Chief Apostle among them. See

defendingthebride.com/ch/hand.html

Matthew 16:13-19
“When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi …
He said to …Simon Peter … you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church …”

Actually Jesus Christ spoke in Aramaic. And He used the Aramaic word for rock which is “Kephas.” See John 1:42 below.

So, Jesus’ actual words were

“… you are Kephas, and upon this Kephas I will build my Church …” [The words not underlined are translated into English.]

In Paul’s letters he continued to use this Aramaic name for Peter. Cf. 1 Corinthians 15:5, etc.

John’s Gospel chapter 1 verse 42 informs us that Jesus really called Peter “Kephas” and that this name was later translated to “Peter,” or actually “Petros” in the Greek text of Matthew’s Gospel.

John 1:42
“Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, ‘You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Kephas’ (which is translated Petros).”

Now back to Mat. 16:18, Jesus does not say “Simon, your confession is rock.” Jesus said Simon is rock, “Kepha.” Besides, you cannot separate Peter from his faith or confession.

Yes, Jesus is the Rock, the Capstone. And it is Jesus working in Simon that now makes him a rock. Jesus is the head of the Church in Heaven. And the Apostles and prophets have Peter and his successor as Jesus vicar or representative here on earth. Eph. 2:20 works beautifully with Matt 6:18.

Please read more at

defendingthebride.com/ch/ca/rock1.html

.

I have read those things before. They just fall apart when you look at the context of Jesus’ statement, and the greater context. The rock is the confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God! Jesus could never build his Church on a man, as much as Rome would like to believe it.

And when you look at Acts, you do not see Peter as the distinguished head of the Church at all. You see the apostles, and, in fact, James seems to have more authority than Peter. In Acts 15, when the critical debate came up about the legalists, Peter shared his story and wisdom, and then it was James who made the decisive pronouncement!—“12 All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.
13 After they had stopped speaking, James answered, saying, “Brethren, listen to me…”

And in Galatians 2, notice several things: Peter was the main messenger of the gospel to the Jews, and Paul was the main messenger to the Gentiles. Notice also that when he mentions men of prominence (he doesn’t care about ANY human prominence!), he says, “James and Peter and John!” Let’s get real, by getting biblical! Here is the passage:

“But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our LIBERTY which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into BONDAGE. 5 But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you. 6 But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised 8 (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), 9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, JAMES and CEPHAS and JOHN, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.”

 

[JohnR77]

I have read those things before. They just fall apart when you look at the context of Jesus’ statement, and the greater context. The rock is the confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God! Jesus could never build his Church on a man, as much as Rome would like to believe it.

If the confession was the rock why didn’t Jesus say so?
Why does Jesus instead say that Simon is now the rock, Peter?
“Jesus could never …” ?
Sorry, Jesus is God. He can, and does do what He says.
It seems to fall apart in your eyes because you read into Galatians your own misunderstandings and then use those misunderstandings as an excuse to deny what is plainly said in the rest of the Gospel.

“LIBERTY which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into BONDAGE.”

In context here we can see that the Bondage is having to follow all the Jewish ritual laws and the Liberty is not having to do so.

“God shows no partiality.”
Yes. Just because a person might be a bishop that does not mean he is holier or more saintly than a man in the pew, or even on the street. All will still be judged on judgment day. HOWEVER, this in no way does away with the hierarchical structure in the Church.

See below, especially St. Paul’s claim to be able to excommunicate another.

defendingthebride.com/ch/hand.html#5

Please note that Peter and Paul were preaching the SAME Gospel message.

And when you look at Acts, you do not see Peter as the distinguished head of the Church at all. You see the apostles, and, in fact, James seems to have more authority than Peter.

1. Who had more authority in the Council of Jerusalem, Peter or James ? Some say that the reference to James’s “judgment“ in Acts 15:13-21 indicated that he had more authority.

ANSWER:
We read in Acts 15:2
“…it was decided that Paul, Barnabas… should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question.” At the Council in Jerusalem it is reported that Acts 15:7 “After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe…” Immediately after Peter gives his decision we are told “The whole assembly fell silent…”

Acts 15:13-14, 19-21
“After they had fallen silent, James responded, ‘My brothers, listen to me. Symeon has described how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name… 19 It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood. For Moses, for generations now, has had those who proclaim him in every town, as he has been read in the synagogues every sabbath.”

However, it should be noted that James begins his discourse with a specific reference to Peter and his declaration. James accepts what Peter proclaimed, and then he just offers his best pastoral judgment on how to implement Peter’s decision.

Also, Peter’s voice was not just one of many because we are told that he gave his decision “after much debate” which implies that the debate was over when Peter took the floor. Furthermore, Peter doesn’t just voice his decision, we are told that he rose up to do so. Standing demonstrates a posture of affirmation and enforcement. The fact that the “whole assembly fell silent” after Peter had spoken showed the attitude of the Church after the Rock had issued his judgment. The attitude of the Council might well have been characterized by Saint Augustine’s famous quote a few centuries later “Rome has spoken, the cause is finished.” (Sermo 131, 6:10 in 417 AD.)

Another observation comes to light when we compare the above text of Acts 15 with Galatians. It is worth noting that it was the people who “came from James” that had difficulty accepting the Gentiles in Galatians 2: 12. Cf. Acts 11:2-4. Since it was the members of James’ own community that had the trouble of accepting the Gentiles, it would have been significant to them that Luke recorded that even James, their most immediate leader, had made his decision to follow Peter. Presumably, James’ community would have been left with no other reasonable choice but to go ahead and make the similar decision to get in line behind Peter as well. We all have our own decision to make, but to get to heaven we need to decide to follow the one who has the keys of the kingdom.

It seems that Peter had previously left Jerusalem to do missionary work in Galatia and other places leaving James behind to lead the community there at Jerusalem. However, Peter was still the earthly head of the whole Church. He alone was given the keys.

All of these points show that is was Peter who had the supreme authority at that first Council.

Thanks for reading,
John

 

[RobbyS]

I think you will find that argument fairly unsubstantiated by logic. It would be no different than rejected Christianity just because Pagans worship a god.

What Jeremiah meant by the Queen of Heaven was a particular and popular pagan goddess, Astarte, I believe. But “ heaven” did not mean what Christians mean by heaven, or the kingdom of heaven, which Christ’s is kingdom.

 

[RobbyS]

If the confession was the rock why didn’t Jesus say so?
Why does Jesus instead say that Simon is now the rock, Peter?
“Jesus could never …” ?
Sorry, Jesus is God. He can, and does do what He says.
It seems to fall apart in your eyes because you read into Galatians your own misunderstandings and then use those misunderstandings as an excuse to deny what is plainly said in the rest of the Gospel.

“LIBERTY which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into BONDAGE.”

In context here we can see that the Bondage is having to follow all the Jewish ritual laws and the Liberty is not having to do so.

“God shows no partiality.”
Yes. Just because a person might be a bishop that does not mean he is holier or more saintly than a man in the pew, or even on the street. All will still be judged on judgment day. HOWEVER, this in no way does away with the hierarchical structure in the Church.

See below, especially St. Paul’s claim to be able to excommunicate another.

defendingthebride.com/ch/hand.html#5

Please note that Peter and Paul were preaching the SAME Gospel message.

1. Who had more authority in the Council of Jerusalem, Peter or James ? Some say that the reference to James’s “judgment“ in Acts 15:13-21 indicated that he had more authority.

ANSWER:
We read in Acts 15:2
“…it was decided that Paul, Barnabas… should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question.” At the Council in Jerusalem it is reported that Acts 15:7 “After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe…” Immediately after Peter gives his decision we are told “The whole assembly fell silent…”

Acts 15:13-14, 19-21
“After they had fallen silent, James responded, ‘My brothers, listen to me. Symeon has described how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name… 19 It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood. For Moses, for generations now, has had those who proclaim him in every town, as he has been read in the synagogues every sabbath.”

However, it should be noted that James begins his discourse with a specific reference to Peter and his declaration. James accepts what Peter proclaimed, and then he just offers his best pastoral judgment on how to implement Peter’s decision.

Also, Peter’s voice was not just one of many because we are told that he gave his decision “after much debate” which implies that the debate was over when Peter took the floor. Furthermore, Peter doesn’t just voice his decision, we are told that he rose up to do so. Standing demonstrates a posture of affirmation and enforcement. The fact that the “whole assembly fell silent” after Peter had spoken showed the attitude of the Church after the Rock had issued his judgment. The attitude of the Council might well have been characterized by Saint Augustine’s famous quote a few centuries later “Rome has spoken, the cause is finished.” (Sermo 131, 6:10 in 417 AD.)

Another observation comes to light when we compare the above text of Acts 15 with Galatians. It is worth noting that it was the people who “came from James” that had difficulty accepting the Gentiles in Galatians 2: 12. Cf. Acts 11:2-4. Since it was the members of James’ own community that had the trouble of accepting the Gentiles, it would have been significant to them that Luke recorded that even James, their most immediate leader, had made his decision to follow Peter. Presumably, James’ community would have been left with no other reasonable choice but to go ahead and make the similar decision to get in line behind Peter as well. We all have our own decision to make, but to get to heaven we need to decide to follow the one who has the keys of the kingdom.

It seems that Peter had previously left Jerusalem to do missionary work in Galatia and other places leaving James behind to lead the community there at Jerusalem. However, Peter was still the earthly head of the whole Church. He alone was given the keys.

All of these points show that is was Peter who had the supreme authority at that first Council.

Thanks for reading,
John

Interesting to me is that the New Testament says nothing about how James got to be head of the Church in Jerusalem. Nor why the man called “the brother of the Lord “ should have played no role in his earthly ministry, so far as we know. The incompleteness of the New Testament record about the people whose names appear suggests that the original audience knew many details that thereafter dropped into the memory well.

 

[Bodyandblood999]

What Jeremiah meant by the Queen of Heaven was a particular and popular pagan goddess, Astarte, I believe. But “ heaven” did not mean what Christians mean by heaven, or the kingdom of heaven, which Christ’s is kingdom.

Exactly, Robby. And it is common knowledge that…"Through her scheming and designing, Semiramis became the Babylonian “Queen of Heaven,” and Nimrod, under various names, became the “divine son of heaven.” Through the generations, in this idolatrous worship, Nimrod became the false Messiah, son of Baal the Sun-god. In this false Babylonish system, the “Mother and Child” (Semiramis and Nimrod reborn), became chief objects of worship. This worship of “Mother and Child” spread over the world. The names varied in different countries and languages. In Egypt, it was Isis and Osiris. In Asia, Cybele and Deoius. In pagan Rome, Fortuna and Jupiterpuer. Even in Greece, China, Japan, Tibet is to be found the counterpart of the Madonna, long before the birth of Christ!

 

[Bodyandblood999]

If the confession was the rock why didn’t Jesus say so?
Why does Jesus instead say that Simon is now the rock, Peter?
“Jesus could never …” ?
Sorry, Jesus is God. He can, and does do what He says.
It seems to fall apart in your eyes because you read into Galatians your own misunderstandings and then use those misunderstandings as an excuse to deny what is plainly said in the rest of the Gospel.

“LIBERTY which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into BONDAGE.”

In context here we can see that the Bondage is having to follow all the Jewish ritual laws and the Liberty is not having to do so.

“God shows no partiality.”
Yes. Just because a person might be a bishop that does not mean he is holier or more saintly than a man in the pew, or even on the street. All will still be judged on judgment day. HOWEVER, this in no way does away with the hierarchical structure in the Church.

See below, especially St. Paul’s claim to be able to excommunicate another.

defendingthebride.com/ch/hand.html#5

Please note that Peter and Paul were preaching the SAME Gospel message.

1. Who had more authority in the Council of Jerusalem, Peter or James ? Some say that the reference to James’s “judgment“ in Acts 15:13-21 indicated that he had more authority.

ANSWER:
We read in Acts 15:2
“…it was decided that Paul, Barnabas… should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question.” At the Council in Jerusalem it is reported that Acts 15:7 “After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe…” Immediately after Peter gives his decision we are told “The whole assembly fell silent…”

Acts 15:13-14, 19-21
“After they had fallen silent, James responded, ‘My brothers, listen to me. Symeon has described how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name… 19 It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood. For Moses, for generations now, has had those who proclaim him in every town, as he has been read in the synagogues every sabbath.”

However, it should be noted that James begins his discourse with a specific reference to Peter and his declaration. James accepts what Peter proclaimed, and then he just offers his best pastoral judgment on how to implement Peter’s decision.

Also, Peter’s voice was not just one of many because we are told that he gave his decision “after much debate” which implies that the debate was over when Peter took the floor. Furthermore, Peter doesn’t just voice his decision, we are told that he rose up to do so. Standing demonstrates a posture of affirmation and enforcement. The fact that the “whole assembly fell silent” after Peter had spoken showed the attitude of the Church after the Rock had issued his judgment. The attitude of the Council might well have been characterized by Saint Augustine’s famous quote a few centuries later “Rome has spoken, the cause is finished.” (Sermo 131, 6:10 in 417 AD.)

Another observation comes to light when we compare the above text of Acts 15 with Galatians. It is worth noting that it was the people who “came from James” that had difficulty accepting the Gentiles in Galatians 2: 12. Cf. Acts 11:2-4. Since it was the members of James’ own community that had the trouble of accepting the Gentiles, it would have been significant to them that Luke recorded that even James, their most immediate leader, had made his decision to follow Peter. Presumably, James’ community would have been left with no other reasonable choice but to go ahead and make the similar decision to get in line behind Peter as well. We all have our own decision to make, but to get to heaven we need to decide to follow the one who has the keys of the kingdom.

It seems that Peter had previously left Jerusalem to do missionary work in Galatia and other places leaving James behind to lead the community there at Jerusalem. However, Peter was still the earthly head of the whole Church. He alone was given the keys.

All of these points show that is was Peter who had the supreme authority at that first Council.

Thanks for reading,
John

John, thanks.

We obviously know that Roman Catholics disagree with most of the rest of the Christian world over that issue of what the rock is that Jesus referred to. We will have to live with that…

But it is very interesting that when the Holy Spirit wrote the history of the first century Church, He gloriously describes Paul’s conversion beginning in chapter 7, and He chose to cease mentioning Peter at chapter 15, and the other half of the book focuses on the apostle Paul! Then He has Paul authoritatively write half of the New Testament, and almost all of the teaching portions.

Lastly, we see how Paul had to strongly confront and instruct Peter regarding his attitude:
“But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

 

[pablope]

Exactly, Robby. And it is common knowledge that…"Through her scheming and designing, Semiramis became the Babylonian “Queen of Heaven,” and Nimrod, under various names, became the “divine son of heaven.” Through the generations, in this idolatrous worship, Nimrod became the false Messiah, son of Baal the Sun-god. In this false Babylonish system, the “Mother and Child” (Semiramis and Nimrod reborn), became chief objects of worship. This worship of “Mother and Child” spread over the world. The names varied in different countries and languages. In Egypt, it was Isis and Osiris. In Asia, Cybele and Deoius. In pagan Rome, Fortuna and Jupiterpuer. Even in Greece, China, Japan, Tibet is to be found the counterpart of the Madonna, long before the birth of Christ!

I would suggest that you stop looking and reading and doing your learning at those anti-catholic websites, especially if they are sourced from Hislop.

ralphwoodrow.org/books/pages/babylon-mystery.html

So is it with the claims about pagan origins. What may seem to have a connection, upon further investigation, has no connection at all!

By this method, one could take virtually anything and do the same—even the “golden arches” at McDonald’s! The Encyclopedia Americana (article: “Arch") says the use of arches was known in Babylon as early as 2020 B.C. Since Babylon was called “the golden city” (Isa. 14:4), can there be any doubt about the origin of the golden arches? As silly as this is, this is the type of proof that has been offered over and over about pagan origins.

By this method, the BIBLE itself would need to be rejected as pagan. All of the following practices or beliefs mentioned in the Bible, were also known among pagans—raising hands in worship, taking off shoes on holy ground, a holy mountain, a holy place in a temple, offering sacrifices without blemish, a sacred ark, city of refuge, bringing forth water from a rock, laws written on stone, fire appearing on a person’s head, horses of fire, the offering of first fruits, tithes, etc.

It is amazing how unsubstantiated teachings like these circulate—and are believed. One can go to any library, check any history book about ancient Babylon, none of these things will be found. They are not historically accurate, but are based on an arbitrary piecing together of bits and pieces of mythology.

Hislop, for example, taught that mythological persons like Adonis, Apollo, Bacchus, Cupid, Dagon, Hercules, Janus, Mars, Mithra, Moloch, Orion, Osiris, Pluto, Saturn, Vulcan, Zoraster, and many more, were all Nimrod! He then formed his own “history” of Nimrod! He did the same thing with Nimrod’s wife. So, according to his theory, Nimrod was a big, ugly, deformed black man. His wife, Semiramis—also known as Easter, he says—was a most beautiful white woman with blond hair and blue eyes, a backslider, inventor of soprano singing, the originator of priestly celibacy, the first to whom the unbloody mass was offered! This is not factual history—it is more in the category of tabloid sensationalism.

BodyandBlood…is this what you have become:

It puzzles me how some can be so fanatical against one set of errors—or what they perceive to be errors—only to develop greater and more obvious errors: becoming judgmental, hateful, and dishonest.

malankaraworld.com/library/General/General_catholic-church-and-paganism.htm

By this method, the Lord himself would be pagan. The woman called Mystery Babylon had a cup in her hand; the Lord has a cup in his hand (Ps. 75:8). Pagan kings sat on thrones and wore crowns; the Lord sits on a throne and wears a crown (Rev. 1:4; 14:14). Pagans worshiped the sun; the Lord is the “sun of righteousness” (Mal. 4:2). Pagan gods were likened to stars; the Lord is called “the bright morning star” (Rev. 22:16). Pagan gods had temples dedicated to them; the Lord has a temple (Rev. 7:15). Pagan gods were pictured with wings; the Lord is pictured with wings (Ps. 91:4).

So it is with claims about pagan origins. Even though Hislop quoted from many scholarly books, seemingly giving his thesis credibility, he often used partial information to make his claims. Two examples will suffice:

Hislop claimed the use of round communion wafers in the Catholic Church came from paganism. He cited Wilkinson (Egyptians, vol. 5, p. 353): “The thin, round cake occurs on all altars.” But in Wilkinson’s book, he said that these cakes were of various kinds: round, oval, or triangular; some were shaped like leaves, in the form of an animal, a crocodile’s head, or some other figure. Hislop did not bother to give us this information.

In another appeal to Wilkinson, Hislop said that the forty days of Lent came from paganism: “Such a Lent of forty days was observed in Egypt, as can be seen on consulting Wilkinson’s Egyptians (vol. 1, p. 278).” But Wilkinson says Egyptian fasts “lasted from seven to forty-two days, and sometimes even a longer period.”

 

[Darryl_B]

It is actually really amazing how inbred Babylon Mystery Religion has become in some protestant and even athiest circles. I guess everyone loves a conspiracy story.

 

[JohnR77]

Exactly, Robby. And it is common knowledge that… China, Japan, Tibet is to be found the counterpart of the Madonna, long before the birth of Christ!

Clearly there is a HUGE difference between that and Catholic devotion to Mary.

2.1 Proof that Catholics clearly teach to worship only God and not to worship Mary

defendingthebride.com/ma3/only18.html

No counterfeit is an exact duplicate of the original. False gods do not equate with the One True God. And False gods do negate that the One True God deserves our devotion.

A Counterfeit Points to the Existence of an Original

defendingthebride.com/ma3/only21.html

There are different types of honor.
They highest form of honor, Adoration, Worship, according to Catholicism goes to God alone.

There is a much lessor form of honor that we give to human beings, such as the Fourth Commandment’s instruction to honor our Father and Mother. We give honor, but not adoration to the Blessed Virgin Mary, who is our spiritual mother in heaven.

“B and B”, I believe your biggest mistake here is that you are insulting God, although of course you do not realize it. I am sure you wish to give 100% of the glory to God, but yet you still insult Him. Let me explain.

Let’s say that God has accomplished “x” number of things. And you give Him credit for all of “x.” Now, lets say that God has accomplished “x plus ten” number of things, but a person comes along and denies that those extra ten number of things were every accomplished. Clearly, this suggests that God is not going to get credit for those extra ten things if He never did them.

Now, let me explain another way.
Suppose a mother or father through great personal sacrifice is able to bring their child into the knowledge and grace of Jesus Christ.
Is this a good thing, is it a good love ? Yes, I think so.
And to whom should we express our gratitude ?

First and foremost we should give it to Jesus Christ, because it is the grace of Jesus Christ working in the heart of that mother or father that enabled them to make that unselfish sacrifice to help their child. And then we can thank that mother or father, or whoever, who cooperated with that grace, said yes to it, in order that they might do that good thing.

God’s greatest accomplishments are not the physical things He created. By applying the grace that Jesus won by His Death and Resurrection to the human heart and transforming our hearts from sinners and reprobates to being people who truly love others is a much greater thing that God accomplishes.

B and B, you are saying that God did not accomplish the good things in Mary’s heart that Catholicism says He did. And thus, you insult God by refusing to acknowledge that He accomplished one of His greatest works.

Peace,
John

 

[JohnR77]

John, thanks.
We obviously know that Roman Catholics disagree with most of the rest of the Christian world over that issue of what the rock is that Jesus referred to. We will have to live with that…

Well, if they accepted the rock, the Papacy, they would end up becoming Catholic.
Please consider reading some Protestant ministers who became Catholic.

Failure to accept this can lead to death. Please read.

defendingthebride.com/ch/ca/rock5.html

… He chose to cease mentioning Peter at chapter 15, and the other half of the book focuses on the apostle Paul! Then He has Paul authoritatively write half of the New Testament, and almost all of the teaching portions.

Paul had been a Pharisee. He was well educated and so he could read and write.

Matthew had some formal education. He was a tax collector. And he wrote the first Gospel. Several, like Peter, were fisherman without formal education it seems, and wrote little.

1. If Saint Peter is so important in the Church why is he hardly mentioned in the second half of the Book of Acts ?

ANSWER:
The Book of the Acts of the Apostles was written by Luke. This is attested to by very early church documents. (Cf. St. Irenaeus Bishop of Lyon, Against Heresies 3, 15, 1 and the Muratorian Fragment - 155 to 200 AD). We also know that Saint Luke was a companion with Saint Paul in some of his travels. (Cf. St. Irenaeus Bishop of Lyon, Against Heresies 3, 1, 1)

So, it is not at all surprising that Luke records more things about Paul in the second half of his book. The Muratorian Fragment when it describes why some things are mentioned while other things are not, it states, “ … The Acts of the Apostles, however, were written by Luke … and … these events took place in his presence, for he omits the passion of Peter, as also the journey of Paul when he went from the city to Spain.” Since he was Paul’s companion rather than Peter’s we would expect to find more about Paul in the latter part of the book.

Paul had to strongly confront and instruct Peter regarding his attitude:
“But when Cephas came to Antioch… The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. … I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

1. Does Paul’s rebuke of Peter in Galatians2:11 undermine the Papacy ?

ANSWER:
Galatians 2:11-14
“And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong. … he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised. And the rest of the Jews (also) acted hypocritically along with him …”

Peter is accused of acting hypocritically. To act hypocritically is to say one thing and then to act contrary. This passage necessarily implies that while Peter’s actions were wrong, his teachings were all the while correct.

For a more detailed answer see
PETER AND PAUL AND GALATIANS = DISSENT ?

defendingthebride.com/ch/pa/gatatians.html

John,

 

[Bodyandblood999]

Since this thread is on Mary, let’s get back to her. Two thoughts:

1. Jesus said that there was no one greater than John the Baptist among all humans that had been born of women. So Jesus said Mary was not greater than John the Baptist.
2. Jesus talked a lot about prayer and he never once mentioned Mary when talking about it. If the Catholic Church is right then he should have said, “Ask Mary to ask me anything in my name and I will do it.” But, amazingly, He didn’t!

“Until now you have asked for nothing in My name; ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be made full.”-John 16:24

“If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.”-John 14:14

“In that day you will ask in my name.”-John 16:26

 

[RobbyS]

Exactly, Robby. And it is common knowledge that…"Through her scheming and designing, Semiramis became the Babylonian “Queen of Heaven,” and Nimrod, under various names, became the “divine son of heaven.” Through the generations, in this idolatrous worship, Nimrod became the false Messiah, son of Baal the Sun-god. In this false Babylonish system, the “Mother and Child” (Semiramis and Nimrod reborn), became chief objects of worship. This worship of “Mother and Child” spread over the world. The names varied in different countries and languages. In Egypt, it was Isis and Osiris. In Asia, Cybele and Deoius. In pagan Rome, Fortuna and Jupiterpuer. Even in Greece, China, Japan, Tibet is to be found the counterpart of the Madonna, long before the birth of Christ!

Ergo, when we as Catholics speak of Mary as queen of heaven we do not mean this goddess or any goddess but the mother of Jesus who is Christ the king.

 

[RobbyS]

Since this thread is on Mary, let’s get back to her. Two thoughts:

1. Jesus said that there was no one greater than John the Baptist among all humans that had been born of women. So Jesus said Mary was not greater than John the Baptist.
2. Jesus talked a lot about prayer and he never once mentioned Mary when talking about it. If the Catholic Church is right then he should have said, “Ask Mary to ask me anything in my name and I will do it.” But, amazingly, He didn’t!

“Until now you have asked for nothing in My name; ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be made full.”-John 16:24

“If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.”-John 14:14

“In that day you will ask in my name.”-John 16:26/QUOTE
With respect this is what happens when one takes Scripture and makes it say more than it does. He is not ranking people, just tell us what a great man John was. Among Jesus disciples he was more admired than anyone except Jesus himself. As for the wedding story, Jesus shows reluctant to act, but he does. As is to often the case, we only know part of the story. Why was he there in the first place? Who were the bride and groom? That Mary sought his intervention suggests these were family members. That she gave orders to the attendents suggests she was herself involved . But John does not tell us. That is not his purpose. He only wishes to tell us about this sign of the Lord’s power.

 

[JohnR77]

Since this thread is on Mary, let’s get back to her.

I realize that you Protestants want to turn the conversation back to Mary every chance you get - Really, I can - but, let us first address your interesting post.

1. Jesus talked a lot about prayer and he never once mentioned Mary when talking about it. If the Catholic Church is right then he should have said, “Ask Mary to ask me anything in my name and I will do it.” But, amazingly, He didn’t!

“Until now you have asked for nothing in My name; ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be made full.”-John 16:24

“If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.”-John 14:14

“In that day you will ask in my name.”-John 16:26

I noticed you mentioned “name” four times. “Name” is more than just an identifier. Many people pray “In Jesus’ name I pray, please let me win the lottery … or whatever” and do not honor God.
So, we need to do some real Bible study on that.

Genesis 11:4-10
“Then they said, ‘Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves …’
Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.
10 These are the descendants of Shem…”

The Hebrew word for “name” in Genesis 11 is “Shem.”
Shem was the righteous first born son of Noah.

Shem was a father figure and through his lineage we get Abram, David, and Jesus.

The evil men in Genesis were punished because they rejected Shem to make a Shem a “name” for themselves to get up into heaven their own way.

Noticed that those who “made” their own name went into countless different directions.
Does this apply today? Which Christians ? Hmm …

“According to a long tradition - Jewish and Christian - the mysterious Melchizedek is actually Shem, the great patriarch, the righteous inheritor of the blessings promised by God after the Flood.”

Jesus, a Father figure

Hmm. Punishment at Tower of Babel … Is there any connection with modern day Protestants who reject the Fatherhood passed onto us by Christ, and His Vicar, the Holy Father, - Pope –means Papa, father- and claim to follow the Bible Alone and create their own doctrines on how to get to heaven and go into what has been documented as 36,000 different contradictory denominations ???

This all gives insight into what it means to ask in the Name of Jesus.

See
Salvation History

1. Jesus said that there was no one greater than John the Baptist among all humans that had been born of women. So Jesus said Mary was not greater than John the Baptist.

Luke 7:28
“I tell you, among those born of women, no one is greater than John; yet the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”

John was “born of women” that is only by flesh and was still under the Old Covenant. Even his disciples needed to receive the Baptism of Jesus to receive the Holy Spirit so as to enter into the New Covenant. See Acts 19:2-6.

Your post implies we need to ask the following very good questions.

Let us now ask ourselves who is greatest in the kingdom of God, and therefore obviously greater than John the Baptist ?

Who has had the most intimate relationship with the Holy Spirit ?

Luke 1:35

Who has had true faith?

Luke 1:45

Who has been most blessed ?

Luke 1:42

Who was full of grace ?

Luke 1:28

And who was therefore, without sin?

Who interceded with Jesus and brought about a seeming change in His plans as He yielded to the intercession and granted the request ?

John 2:1-11

Good questions . Maybe others on the list can answer them. ( I tried to offer some hints. forums.catholic-questions.org/images/smilies/biggrin.gif )
.