Mariology vs Mariolatry

So I will ask once again, is the Catholic dictionary inaccurate when it says

?

Notice the "seperate" form of worship mentioned, Ron.

 

Stop trying to spin it, Clint.

You can't use Catholic sources for definitions of "worship" to show that Catholics worship images when the Catholic souce's definition for worship in that case is clearly not the type of worship given to God alone.

It is regardless, at this point, if it appears in Scripture. That's a second issue; we have to finish this issue first. The word "worship" in these cases does not mean the type of worship you are referring to, and making an eqaution of the two is both deceitful and immoral.

God bless,

Grant

 

?

Notice the "seperate" form of worship mentioned, Ron.</font>[/QUOTE]Same principle. Worship that is due to God alone is forbidden to Mary, so the point remains moot.

God bless,

Grant

 

Wow, you're not appealing to emotion at all, are you? Or appealing to authority? So now, one woman's testamony is absolute truth because it's in agreement with your ideas?

Good job, Clint.

God bless,

Grant

 

At this point, Grant, I would have to agree with you.

Ron

[ October 28, 2002, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

Would you like me to find other testimonies in addition to this one, Grant? Did you read the article so that you could address or refute her assertions? My goal in this thread is to find the voice from within the Catholic church that establishes these principles about which you are so dogmatic. This woman was in the Catholic church even to the point of being a nun!

Good grief, man, you're on a Baptist website! If you only want to interact with people who share your assertions why are you here?

If your beliefs are credible, don't be so worried about them being put under scrutiny. It seems the best you can do is criticize Curtis stopping his quote at a colon on a Mary prayer that you have the ability to quote in full. If the prayer that Curtis cited has a different meaning when cited in full, please enlighten us. Then you try to discredit a link to an article by a former Catholic nun which examines this same topic as is being discussed here. The essay I posted shows credentials and cites specifics. I’m using the writings of current and former Catholics. It’s not like I’m throwing Chick tracts at you.

This is far less than the emotional effort found here: http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=28;t=001175#000009

Welcome back.

No, I have successfully used a Catholic source to show that worsip of Mary does occur:

Now the burden lies on you to show that this is different than worship to God. In other words, perhaps it is time that one of you define latria, dulia and hyperdulia so that we can see that they are not breaking the Second Commandment and show the origin of this practice of "different" forms of worship being agreeable to the God of Abraham. You'll have to excuse me, my high school didn't offer Latin.

Show me the exception clause in this verse from Scripture:

Matthew 4:10 - Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'

Or will you have to move from the teachings of Jesus Christ Himself to do so?

Of course as predicted, the cry of "foul" is rising. If you feel my arguments are illogical, cite the fallacy and move on. The reader will determine for himself if that is so. The fact of the matter is, the topic has stayed on course and now it is YOU who is appealing to emotionalism. I have been moderating this forum for 8 full months now and have seen these debates bear no fruit. Now that I have the assistance of two other moderators I am able to join in this debate without worry of a claim of "pulling rank." Stop crying about it and contend for your faith. The salvation of the readers of this thread may be in danger (1Timothy 4:16).

[ October 28, 2002, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

Your goal is to find a voice from within the Catholic Church...

...and you pull out a testimony from a "former" Catholic?

An unsubstantiated testimony no less.

As much as I have seen this sort of tripe from Baptists before, I must admit that it is a little surprising to see it from you, Clint.

And a little disappointing too.

Ron

 

No, it is not my only defense. It was not meant as a defense at all. I was merely expressing my disappointment in what I percieve to be a change in Clint's attitude.

I must admit that this does seem to be the usual Baptist manner of treating Catholics though.

Throw out 5,000 accusations at once and when they are not all immediately adressed, claim victory.

Clint's article makes enough accustions and claims to require several books to answer.

Why doesn't someone pick one point and I will adress it at length.

Ron

 

Clint took Ed's post and addressed it point by point. The decent thing to do is to take his post and respond in kind: point by point.
DHK

 

DHK,

I do this to nearly every post I reply to, and I hardly get all of my points addressed. Most typically, the easiest points to argue, or the ones where I slipped and made a mistake...those are the ones that are torn to shreds while the others are left standind. You're accusations are baseless.

God bless,

Grant

 

Hi guys, this thread is certainly an education for me, and entertaining as well!!

Ed, as noted, none of the Epistles or Revelation mention Mary. Re her sitting on a throne in Heaven, Revelation specifically states there is only the throne of God and the Lamb (Rev 22:3 etc). Where in Revelation do you get a more complete description of Heaven, and how come no Mary throne there (unless she doesn't have one).

Carson, I looked up the link, thanks. In it, I read, "Moreover, the distinct way in which Mary does this is pointed out when she is called by the early Fathers an Advocate. The word is used of our Lord and the Holy Ghost-"
1 John 2:1 specifies that there is only ONE advocate, Jesus Christ the righteous.

Take care, Colin

 

Hi Colin,

I looked up the link, thanks.

You're welcome.

1 John 2:1 specifies that there is only ONE advocate, Jesus Christ the righteous.

1 John 2:1 - "My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous"

The verse that you mention does not speak of only one advocate, nor does it speak of an advocate to the exclusion of all others. What it does say is that Jesus is our parakletos (assistant, pleader, legal assistant, etc.). The implication (what is implied) is that Jesus died for our sins and so through him, we have recourse to the forgiveness of sins.

No one can do what Jesus did because no one else is fully God and fully Man and atoned for our sin by conquering death through the resurrection. Terms must be defined. Advocate, in the sense of Mary, speaks of her role of accepting our prayers and presenting them before her Son, Jesus Christ in heaven.

As the Second Vatican Council says in its Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium - or, "Light of the World", speaking of Christ), "There is but one Mediator as we know from the words of the apostle, 'for there is one God and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a redemption for all' (1 Tim 2:5). The maternal duty of Mary toward men in no wise obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows His power. For all the salvific influence of the Blessed Virgin on men originates, not from some inner necessity, but from the divine pleasure. It flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on His mediation, depends entirely on it and draws all its power from it. In no way does it impede, but rather does it foster the immediate union of the faithful with Christ."

I hope this helps clear things up a bit.

God bless,

Carson

[ October 28, 2002, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

No, Clint, I would not, for testamonies are not authoritative. If you want to pretend they are, then put a stop to the frequent condemntation of the use of early Church Fathers by Catholics. Testimonies are emotional responses, and a good thing, but not appropriate for a theological discussion.

I've read this one before, and left unimpressed by her lack of research and how easily she was swayed from her beliefs.

Yes, and Martin Luther was a priest. Your point? Because someone was a nun and left the Catholic faith...that makes her more believable? Somehow that is two-faced, since it's been said many times that a Fundamentalist who became Catholic must have been "weak in his/her faith" to do such a thing. If you're not appealing to emotions, then don't be so emotionally obviously bias in your approach.

More emotional appeal, as if you could make me feel guilty about this or something. If people all thought just like me here, we wouldn't have debates. Think logical. This is the "other religions" board. It's you who are in the wrong place, since you want everyone to think just like you.

I'm not worried about my beliefs. I'm worried about poor attitudes from of all people, the moderator.

He said it was from one of the documents of the Vatican Council...you want me to read the whole thing so I can find out exactly where he got it from? He found it, he should finish the sentence. Somehow it seems deceitful for me to have to disprove the meaning of a prayer when the author didn't publish the entire thing. In fact, that should make void the argument. If all the evidence isn't there, then there isn't a case.

You posted it as an example to discredit our beliefs...when it is a testamony from an ex-Catholic and not a Catholic source. Of course she will be on your side of things - she left the Church! That doesn't prove anything.

Christ ate with tax collectors and prostitutes. And you roll your eyes as you "welcome" people.

 

I'm fed up with the Catholics dodging the bullet on any thread that makes them uncomfortable, Ron. The bandwidth of this forum is being consumed for the sake of proselytizing for the RCC and little more. It had been established at one point that Catholics look to Scripture as authority and I hope we all agree that God does not contradict Himself. When someone questions someone else to back up their religion with documentation and credible sources that is not a lack of charity. That is holding someone accountable for all the proclamations they make. There is a difference.

Have I claimed victory? You haven't even addressed but one points on this thread: The Ark which I showed was NOT worshipped using a Catholic source.

Now Grant has made the assertion once again that the worship given to Mary is not the same as the worship given to God. I responded with the statement, "perhaps it is time that one of you define latria, dulia and hyperdulia so that we can see that they are not breaking the Second Commandment and show the origin of this practice of "different" forms of worship being agreeable to the God of Abraham." No one has done this yet.

You know , normally in this forum I spend more than half my time reading catechisms. I have read catechisms until my eyes bulged! Now, I ask for one and I can't get it! Not one! No councils, no Pope so-and-so said this, NOTHING!

So the obvious course of action is to not address any of the points at all?

Okay.

Please define latria, dulia and hyperdulia so that we can see that they are not breaking the Second Commandment and show the origin of this practice of "different" forms of worship being agreeable to the God of Abraham.

Colin - It IS an education, isn't it? They will continue crying "unfair" until page ten and then they'll sulk about it for a week. After you've been here a while, you'll get to recognize the pattern.

Wow! Almost to page 5 and we're still talking about Mariolatry!

 

Hi Clint,

Please define latria, dulia and hyperdulia

Sure, read http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01151a.htm

God bless,

Carson

 

Thanks Carson.

I am, however, having trouble locating this passage cited on that web page:

Is the Catholic Bible numbered differently through the Book of 2Kings and is there an alternate spelling for "Miphiboseth"?

Also, am I to incur that "worship" and "adoration" are synonymous?

Further, can you point me to a website(s) that may have the documents cited in this statement?

I am particularly interested in what the Council of Trent had to say regarding the differences in these "adorations" and how they specifically arrived at such a concept. That seems to be at the heart of this matter.

Thanks for your response.

 

You ignored the rest of Clint's challenge:

"Please define latria, dulia and hyperdulia so that we can see that they are not breaking the Second Commandment and show the origin of this practice of "different" forms of worship being agreeable to the God of Abraham." empahsis added

Clint, have a look at this:

http://history.hanover.edu/early/trent.htm

Also it would appear that the verse that was supposed to have been quoted was 2 Samuel 9:6, not 2 Kings.

[ October 28, 2002, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: Dualhunter ]

 

Clint --

I must disagree with your supposition regarding the covenant. You gave me three examples which you say point to the three different "kinds" of covenants. But you have not really addressed the issue at all, for I stated that what you have set forth is NOT a covenant, but a contract.

Example of a Royal Grant: Genesis 9:8-17 v. 11 - Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.

There is NOTHING in here which even vaguely speaks to a "royal grant". The verse you quote has to do with the oath/promise of a covenant.

Ray Sutton has written a very good book which gives the foundational structure of a covenant. In this structure, he outlines 5 specific things which a covenant must have to be a covenant. One of these is "oaths/sanctions". In the Genesis verses, God is not giving something to Noah, He is doing for Noah the same thing that He did with Adam. He is setting up Noah as the covenant head and making promises to Noah based on His faithfulness.

Example of a Suzerain-vassal: Exodus 19-24 v. 19:5 - Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine.

Oh my. This is so clearly not a sovereign/vassal contract. In a sovereign/vassal contract, there is no sense in which the vassal is anything else but a SLAVE. This is NOT what is being spoken of here. Israel is being told that she will belong to God as His own, a special treasure to Him.

b]Example of parity: 1Samuel 20:1-17 v. 16 - Now Jonathan again caused David to vow, because he loved him; for he loved him as he loved his own soul.[/b]

Since the word covenant is used in Scripture over 280 times, it is an important facet of God's dealing with us. It is therefore necessary to understand properly WHAT a covenant it, HOW it works, and WHO makes covenants.

As I mentioned before, the difference between a contract and a covenant is that in the first, property is exchanged, in the second, lives are given one to another in love. There is a big difference between these two concepts.

As for the examples from the catechism, I think that perhaps I should bow out, for I simply do not have enough time to do proper research right now. Things are beyond crazy with me and I have even been quite limited in the amount of time I spend on the ole puter.

One last thing. I am not Eastern Orthodox. I am Byzantine Catholic, which is Orthodox in praxis, but accepts communion with Rome and acknowledges the headship of the Holy Father. And as you noted, the doctrines are the same.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

My apologies. Thank you for the clarification.

Perhaps a new topic could be started on covenants so that this one will not wander from the discussion of Mariolatry.

[ October 28, 2002, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]