Prayers To Mary

The RCC adopted the practices of the pagans. They pray to many gods, but the RCC calls them saints. They make Mary to be a co-redeemer with Christ.

We have one Mediator, one High Priest, One Advocate, one Redeemer. THese are but a few roles our Lord Jesus Christ fulfills.

 

I'm sorry but this us just rude and a misrepresentation of what Catholics say they believe. Praying to the Saints is not the same thing as praying to a god. it is wrong and lacks scriptural support but that does not rise to the level of worship.

 

That is like saying Protestantism adopted the practices of the Rationalist during the Rennesiance and degraded faith to the level of just an intellectual exercise.

 

As a Catholic, I have to admit I find this prayer over the top. It certainly isn't going to become a personal devotion of mine. I've never heard this prayer said before or prayed it myself.

On the other hand, I read it over and try to see if it contains heresy that I must reject. In the prayer I see a great emphasis on relying on the prayers of Mary to lead us to salvation in Christ. I don't understand why that is necessary or appropriate for anyone. Why wouldn't they just ask Christ to forgive their sins, rather than asking Mary to pray to Christ to forgive their sins? I don't get it. But on the other hand I can't write it off as heresy. Is it a sin to ask another person to pray to God that I be forgiven? Would I have to distance myself from someone who did that, and say they are not Christian?

I see a lot of relying on a mediator between the believer and Christ, who in turn is the mediator between all men and God. I have no idea why this extra level of mediation is wanted. On the other hand why would I condemn it? It's not a sin or a heresy to ask Mary to pray for us to obtain a true love of Jesus. Weird, maybe... but not a sin.

 

So, is the Bible the final authority for your faith and practice or is it to be intepreted by church tradition?

 

I want to have the same faith and practice that the apostles handed on to the first Churches. The bible nowhere gives us permission to disregard apostolic teaching just because it isn't fully spelled out in writing. The bible is authoritative but so was the preaching of the apostles. Jesus, in the bible, gave the apostles authority to teach and lead, and to disregard their teachings because you don't see them in the bible, is unbiblical.

 

The New Testament is that oral tradition of the Apostles put into writing and according to Peter, whom I believe Rome holds in high esteem, the written prophetic word is much "more sure" than oral apostolic teaching - 2 Pet. 1:18

What you have in the Ante-Nicene Records is the history of apostasy!

 

Sounds like Blasphemy to me!

 

Here's the verse you quote, which says nothing like you claim:

I see no evidence of an apostasy when I read the ante-nicene fathers. If Christianity had apostasized during that time, I would expect to see some evidence of a major struggle and great division. I don't see that.

 

I mistakenly said verse 18 when I meant to say 19 - my mistake. I am quoting form the KJV but you are quoting from some other version. The Greek term translated "more sure" is Bebaioteron and means something very steadfast and sure. Peter is comparing his oral teaching of his eye witness event (vv. 15-18) with the more trustworthy stability of the written prophetic word (vv. 19-21).

You don't see it because you don't compare what the Scriptures teach versus what the Ante-Nicene Father's teach. You read Ante-Nicene theology back into the Scriptures rather than examining Ante-Nicene theology by the Scriptures.

 

No... it doesn't say anything like that at all. The subject is prophecy, not oral vs. written tradition:

19 We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things.

Your version would require that the apostasy occurred immediately and on a vast scale, within the first 20 years after the death of John the Apostle. And this apostasy would have to have been so quick and complete that there was not even a mention of any remnant of faithful Christians after that time. It's an incredible theory.

 

>What you have in the Ante-Nicene Records is the history of apostasy!

The Ante-Nicene record of truth is???


I prefer the Orthodox "Jesus Prayer."

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, be merciful to me, a sinner.

 

There is a contrast being made. He tells them what he was an eye witness to but then commends them to the written prophetic word "pay attenton to it" as it does not contain the personal views or opinion of the writers but is the personal view of God the Holy Spirit - vv. 20-21. The written prophetic word more sure in many ways than personal experiences related by the apostles orally. Oral teaching declines in accuracy each time it is transferred from person to person but not so with the written word of God it simply grows brighter and brighter as it remains the same on the written page but expands under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Oral tradition gives a Personal perspective but written prophecy gives the perspective of God not the individual view of the writer. Hence, only the written word of prophecy is given for doctrine and correction, instruction, reproof that the man of God may be COMPLETE and THOROUGHLY FURNISHED unto ALL good works. No so with oral tradition as it was designed only to be temporary until the written word completed it (Isa. 8:16; Heb. 2:3-4,10-12; 2 Tim. 3:16; Rev. 1:3, 22:18-19).

Precisely! John says there were many "anti-christs" already present when he wrote the first John. Paul predicted it shortly (1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Tim. 3:1-7). The state of the congregations of Asia were influenced by it (Rev. 2-3).

 

I can't subscribe to a view where the true Christians completely disappear only 20 years after the apostles then appears again 1000 years later. It just isn't credible IMO. It would mean that the entire book of Acts and the apostolates of Peter and Paul etc. was a big colossal failure. It would imply that Jesus picked a bunch of losers to start his Church, who didn't form the first generation properly.

 

How about the thief on the cross ?

"Jesus, Lord, remember me when you enter into your kingdom."

 

I didn't say that "all" Christians apostatized in the first 20 years or even at all. What I said is that the beginning of the great apostasy was in progress even before the New Testament was finished by the end of the first century and increased century by century right up to the present and is still increasing in growth and size. Take a look at the parable of the tares and you will see the Biblcial perspective of increasing apostasy from the apostolic age to the Second coming. The true seed are HIDDEN among the apostate stuff in the professing kingdom.

 

You're changing your story. First you said the apostasy was complete by the year 100 which is why there is absolutely zero evidence of your 'true christians', even as a separate group, in the ante-nicene fathers. Now you're back to saying that the true christians existed side by side with the catholics from the year 100 on. So lets see the historical evidence for the true christians.

Was Irenaeus a Catholic? If so, he lists out all the known heresies of his time. Which of them do your true biblical Christians fall into? Or will you now claim again that they had completely disappeared to the point where an apostate Irenaeus didn't even bother mentioning them?

 

Christianity never disappeared.
"The Lord knows them that are his."
The Lord always had believers that stayed true to his word throughout every generation from the apostles onward to this day (and they weren't the RCC). If you were objective enough to sit down and study Baptist History you would find out how Rome has revised history and re-written it. In our history books today the bloody Crusades have been cleaned up and sanitized, made to look like necessary war fare--the exact opposite of what they were--bloody needless massacre against defenseless people. The most horrible of Inquisitions are hardly touched upon and/or explained--All for the political expediency of the RCC.
Read some Baptist history and see what really happened.
It was a Catholic, Cardinal Hosius, that testified that the Waldenses were a righteous and godly living people that lived for the last 1200 years right down to the time of the Apostles. At least there was one among the RCC that was willing to admit it.

 

Let's see your citation for this